Arnold Clark - BEWARE !

s1lv3rdal5

There appear to be several posts from the: Arnold Clark Fan Club.

The Law is Quite Clear, The Consumer Protection Regulations state that.

A motor trader MUST volunteer the information, without being asked.

Arnold Clark Did Not, so they BROKE THE LAW.

fivetide

harveybobbles wrote: »

My OH smokes in our car - but always has the window down.

Headlining is white and the only smell in our car is the smell of the leather seats.

Fine as long as she uses the ashtray and doesn't just chuck the tab ends out of the window...

No car as fast as a hire car though. Whilst it wouldn't put me off if they were upfront (as it seems they should have been) it would bother me if it wasn't declared. I generally ask if the car was auction/trade in etc when looking and I'd want to be told the truth.

5t.

art_for_arts_sake

I once had an ex-rental sold to me. I was doubly annoyed because the garage were on first name terms with me as I knew them through a former colleague, though with hindsight maybe that should have been a warning in itself:mad: I suspect it may have been clocked too as many of the vehicle components failed "prematurely", i.e. many thousands of miles before they'd be expected to. Ever since, when I've bought a car from a garage I always ask to see the V5. If they won't let you see it or claim not to have it, walk away. I've even contacted the last owner before now to verify the details, it may seem a little overcautious, but as the saying goes, caveat emptor. In this case at least the OP noticed in time.

harveybobbles

Rental cars only ever have a maximum of about 12,000 miles on. so its highhly unlikely that it'd been clocked.

s1lv3rdal5

Hi Art_for_arts_sake
At least you understand why ex Hire Cars are not worth as much as a normal one private owner car.

However it is not a case of caveat emptor.

It is the Law.
It is an Offence if a dealer does not tell you.
Just ask your local Trading Standards Office.

Consumer Law is there to Protect the Consumer from unscrupulous retailers.
They are mostly Criminal Offences and If a trader breaks these Laws, he will have a Criminal Record, plus up to £5,000 fine.

Joe_Horner

s1lv3rdal5 wrote: »

There appear to be several posts from the: Arnold Clark Fan Club.

The Law is Quite Clear, The Consumer Protection Regulations state that.

A motor trader MUST volunteer the information, without being asked.

Arnold Clark Did Not, so they BROKE THE LAW.

The problem is, the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (2008 No.1277) doesn't state that at all. I assume those are the ones you mean by "Consumer Protection Regulations" rather than the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (2000 No. 2334)?

What you've quoted from is NOT the regulations, it's guidance on interpretation of the regulations provided by the OFT. That is NOT the same as "what the regulations state".

Besides which, after the mistake was identified, it was, by your own admission, rectified immediately and without reservation. Which strongly suggests that it was a genuine mistake in this case.

Mistakes are unfortunate but they're not grounds for repeatedly posting that a business "broke the law" or "all customers AVOID!!!!!!".

s1lv3rdal5

Joe Horner
That is your OPINION, and you are entitled to that.

The garage did not make a "mistake", the car is still for sale and they are not disclosing the fact it was a Rental Car.

As stated in my earlier post, this is NOT the sort of treatment a customer expects from a Ford main dealer.

That is my opinion, if you don't like it, then don't read this post !

SIMPLES:D

Joe_Horner

The fact you quoted guidance as "the law" and as proof that a company "BROKE THE LAW" (your repeated caps) isn't my opinion, it's fact.

For the record, I wouldn't go near somewhere like AC because I wouldn't pay dealer prices anyway (I'm more than capable of checking private sales over for myself) so I'm not "supporting" them.

But the fact is, you have no idea whether or not it was a genuine mistake and they certainly dealt with it as if it was. You also don't know if they're disclosing it to anyone else who's shown interest about it's history - volunteering the information certainly doesn't mean they need to put a bloody great neon sign on it even in the guidelines you quoted.

I'm all for businesses giving customers a fair deal, and all for businesses who don't being held to account. But shouting very possibly defamatory comments, repeatedly, in a case where they dealt with the problem as soon as it was highlighted simply puts you (and potentially the site) at risk of legal action if they decide to take it!

If they'd tried to hold you to the sale you might have grounds but you got your deposit back as soon as you asked, so move on and don't use them again. It really is that simple!

Hintza

Joe_Horner wrote: »

What you've quoted from is NOT the regulations, .

Thank you, I had a very quick look too and was slightly confused at where the OP had dredged these regulations up from.

Joe_Horner

Hintza wrote: »

Thank you, I had a very quick look too and was slightly confused at where the OP had dredged these regulations up from.

If you look under The Consumer Protection Regulations, Section 5.26 (misleading omissions). They are Quite Clear.

Section 5.26? "Space Corps super chimps performing acts of indecency in zero-gravity will lose all banana privileges"?

Surely you mean CPR2008 Section 6 Mr Rimmer, Sir?