Was I mis-sold this car?

RensterUK

All,

Having *finally* settled a dispute with Mercedes Benz (via the BVRLA) in my favour, I'm now wondering if the car I bought wasn't what I thought it was, and what I could do...

Nov 2008: Bought an "approved used" MB from a franchised dealer on 3yr PCP finance
Apr 2011: returned the car a few months early
May 2011 - Current - MB try and bill me for repairs to car. I fight and win on all the disputed items.

As a result, 2 things have become clear: 1) They seemingly do not have a pre-delivery inspection report. 2) Any inspection that was done before delivery missed at least one item, possibly more. The one item that alerted me to things not being as they seemed was a "poor repair" to the front bumper. Seemingly the first owner had it repaired for whatever incident, and MB knew nothing of it. No inspection report until now, and items such as this show up.

To re-iterate - This was an approved used car. By MB's own standards, all AUC's are "meticulously inspected" - giving a guarantee that "everything is in perfect working order" (quoting their website)

Seems to me this was not the case with my car. The car has now gone back, but Im now wondering if I spent several thousand pounds on a car that wasn't as described.

Thoughts?

pitkin2020

Sorry but your post doesn't make much sense. How was the car described and what doesn't match the description?? Is your post referring to the car you no longer have or is it a new car?

RensterUK

It was an approved used car (one previous owner). Mercedes claim that all such used cars undergo a meticulous inspection before sale / delivery to guarantee the car is perfect. All seemed fine when I took the car.

Upon returning it towards end of agreement (voluntary termination), their defleet centre billed me for a number of repairs, including a number of items I was oblivious too (almost impossible to see) - and including one to sort out a "poor repair" to the front bumper. I never had any repair work done while I had the car. They acknowledged this, and reduced the bill. After a lengthy dispute, they bill dropped to almost nothing (other than items I accepted) - as they had no inspection report prior to my collecting the car - ie, seemingly, they didnt inspect it before I bought it - or at least, not to the level they had now inspected it.

The MB site states that all such cars are meticulously inspected prior to sale, to guarantee that everything is perfect. Seemingly my car (now returned) was less than perfect when I collected it, and had been less than meticulously inspected - the absence of an inspection report at the time of collection adds to my doubts.

So I'm wondering - if this car wasn't properly (if at all) inspected before I bought it (and until I received the bill after returning the car I had no reason to believe otherwise) was the car other than as described - and as such, was I mis-sold?

Also, having returned the car, does this have any impact? I spent a lot of money on a car I believed was "as new" - only to find out when I returned it that it wasnt.

Hope this makes more sense now.

pitkin2020

So let me get this right, you had the car for nearly 3 years and only now are you concerned it was mis sold??

Sorry but the list of repairs that they claim needed doing when you returned the car have been disputed and won so obviously they didn't need doing or weren't as bad as they made out. Usual tactic it would from MB that when a lease is up they state x, y and z need repairing to get more money.

Also, having returned the car, does this have any impact? I spent a lot of money on a car I believed was "as new" - only to find out when I returned it that it wasnt. Impact on what exactly?? Well was the car new or not, as new just meant it was in excellent condition, which if it wasn't at the time of purchase why did you accept it?? After 3 years of ownership it probably didn't go back "as new", to be expected obviously.

I really can't understand what the issue is here. How can you have been mis sold a car 3 years later?? A car that must have done what you expected the car to do as you kept it for 3 years??

CHR15

Are you seriously hoping to get all of your payments back and have the use of that car for 3yrs for free?

RensterUK

LOL that would be nice! Not overly realistic tho

There's no disputing the car served me well. The point I'm trying to make is that it was described and sold as an MB approved used car, which by their own definition was 100% perfect, that had been through all MB's AUC procedures etc... When seemingly in reality it was a car that had undergone substandard repairwork, and hadn't been through all MB's AUC procedures after all - and as such, shouldnt have commanded the premium price payable for cars that undergo such strict vetting. The only significance of the 2.5 years I had the car is that it took that long for the truth to come out. Had I known the car's history, and apparent lack of inspection 2.5 years ago, I wouldnt have bought it.

If I bought a car for £100 from "dodgy-dave" who promised me it was mint, I'd expect those claims to be less than true - but having spent a lot of money with a main dealer for a prestige brand, I'd like to think I could expect a little better... I'm not saying MB deliberately mislead me, but I think mistakes have been made regarding the claimed and actual supplied condition of the car.

Does that make any more sense?

dazzadub

to make this simple for everyone,


you bought car from dealer as was told it was approved thus full inspection etc
for this you normally pay a higher price for the car as it approved

if you had bought car from private sale it would have been cheaper but you paid extra for the the inspection etc on cars price.


i get what your saying, you paid a higer price based on the fact you thought it was inspected.

what i think you are asking is, can you get a refund based on the inflated price of the car due to the inspections etc

the difference from dealer to private eg around 500-1000 pounds.


i would ask them the question out right, tell them you wish for some compo as you have bought a car off them and wasnt given what was bought

RensterUK

Exactly dazzadub....

I think you're right - I can but ask for some sort of compensation, but I think we can all hazzard a guess as to the response!

The reason for asking the rather "dramatic" mis-sold question was to try and establish if there was some sort of more... obligatory route available, should playing nicely not work

Dave101t

approved means passes their test.
Whether their test is a visual 'it looks ok guv' or a 500 point service and inspection, is up to them.

vikingaero

Next time you buy any car new or used there is one fundamental that you failed to grasp: If the salesman opens their mouth they are lying.

If the salesman says "Nice weather outside Mr Renster." Then go outside and check.

If he says: "All our cars undergo a 169 point inspection". Then he's a liar unless you have proof.

pitkin2020

OK sort of get it now lol. What paperwork did you have to show an inspection was to be carried out and what paper did you have regarding an inspection. What was wrong with the car at the end of the lease to make you think it hadn't undergone this inspection.

Looking at it from MB's point, the front bumper you said was a poor repair and was brought up at the end of the lease check. If it was so poor why didn't you notice in the beginning of the lease? How can you prove to MB that you didn't have a poor repair carried out during your ownership?? How can you prove after 2 1/2 years that the bumper was or wasn't like it when you bought it. I know i'm playing devils advocate but if the bumper was that bad it should have been seen at the start, you've had the car 2 1/2 years and could have done anything to it that time.

Because of the time scale I can't see how you have any recourse because you have accepted the car, owning it for 2 1/2 years has shown that surely? If you had only had 3-6 months and started to notice a bodged bumper repair etc I think you may have a case. 2 1/2 and now trying to proving is going to be very very hard.