Renault Dealer Sold me a Damaged Car

Flyboy152

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It sounds like when they were replacing the horn, they noticed that the bumper was damaged, and some of the newer moulded ones may not be repairable. If this is the case and the garage thought that the damage made the car unsafe or unroadworthy then they probably wouldn't be allowed to let it out of the garage in case they were held liable if the bumper didn't do its job properly in an accident.

But I don't see why, if that is the case, they are prepared to do it for free.

Flyboy152

daz69kay wrote: »

Ok, thank you all for your replies.

I wasnt after a refund of some sort it was a principle thing. I will check the HPI on the vehicle.

Thank you

It is possible that the dealer was unaware of the damage, but then why are they fixing it for free?

To prove mis-selling, I suppose you would need to prove that the dealer knew of the damage and poor repair before selling you the car. In terms of the value of the car, as it is being repaired, you haven't lost anything. However, you really should have got an independent inspection, before buying the car. It's a little too late now, but perhaps something to keep in mind for the future.

vaio

Flyboy152 wrote: »

It is possible that the dealer was unaware of the damage, but then why are they fixing it for free?

To prove mis-selling, I suppose you would need to prove that the dealer knew of the damage and poor repair before selling you the car. In terms of the value of the car, as it is being repaired, you haven't lost anything. However, you really should have got an independent inspection, before buying the car. It's a little too late now, but perhaps something to keep in mind for the future.

I think the “knowing” bit only applies to private sellers, trade sellers are experts and should have noticed so are liable whether they knew or not.

Flyboy152

vaio wrote: »

I think the “knowing” bit only applies to private sellers, trade sellers are experts and should have noticed so are liable whether they knew or not.

As long as they take all the steps necessary to inspect the vehicle, according to what is reasonable for a skilled person to do, then it is unlikely they would held liable.

vaio

Nah, I think if they assert something, say “never crashed or damaged” and it later turns out to be not the case, they are liable whether or not they knew or it was possible for them to know.

The way to avoid liability is not to make blanket assertions and stick to things like “HPI clear” and similar.

I suppose the logic is similar on say a con rod bolt that isn’t tightened properly, it would certainly be unreasonable to expect them to spot that as there could well be no apparent symptoms but they are still liable when it wreaks the engine a month later.

sarahg1969

It would only show up on an HPI search if it had been a total loss, wouldn't it? It wouldn't show if a more minor damage claim had been made.

vaio

Yep, but the point I was making was them being able to defend the assertion they make as part of the selling process….

“never crashed or damaged” is impossible to be sure about (and therefore avoid liability if it turns out not to be true)

“HPI clear” is easy, do a HPI check, if it comes back clear then it’s proved and you can’t be liable.

And those two assertions are pretty close in meaning to most punters

Flyboy152

vaio wrote: »

Nah, I think if they assert something, say “never crashed or damaged” and it later turns out to be not the case, they are liable whether or not they knew or it was possible for them to know.

The way to avoid liability is not to make blanket assertions and stick to things like “HPI clear” and similar.

I suppose the logic is similar on say a con rod bolt that isn’t tightened properly, it would certainly be unreasonable to expect them to spot that as there could well be no apparent symptoms but they are still liable when it wreaks the engine a month later.

The problem with this is what the customer interprets, what was actually said and proving either. It could be argued the sales executive inferred, "to the best of his knowledge." If the customer inferred it as, "never crashed or damaged," that really is up to them.

A HPI check would only show up previous searches, outstanding financial interests, insurance claims above a certain value, and/or total losses. Which the sales executive could have been referring to when the OP perceived being told that the car had not "been involved in any sort of accident."

Either that, or the sales executive lied.

shaun_from_Africa

But I don't see why, if that is the case, they are prepared to do it for free.

maybe because they specfically stated

I was advised at the time that they dont sell vehicles that have been involved in any sort of accident.

And if they now think that the vehicle was involved in an accident (even without then being aware of it), a few £ hundred to repair it may be to their advantage.

A few hundred pounds to a main dealer is chicken feed, compared to the bad publicity that may occur if something such as this became public knowledge.

Flyboy152

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

maybe because they specfically stated

And if they now think that the vehicle was involved in an accident (even without then being aware of it), a few £ hundred to repair it may be to their advantage.

A few hundred pounds to a main dealer is chicken feed, compared to the bad publicity that may occur if something such as this became public knowledge.

I agree.

........