Dealer registered New Car "Early" what can I do?

Sgt_Pepper_2

Hintza wrote: »

The dealer makes much of their profits on meeting sales targets not in individual units.

The loss of value will be most acute now and will decline over the OP's period of ownership.

Of course the car is the same price on the two days but the value is not the same. In effect it is a pre-reg car and that price differential could be easily calculated from dealer records.

I am just surprised that you can not see how there is a difference in value. So not much point in arguing my case further with you, I'll let my point stand as is and others can judge both arguments.

It's not a pre registered he the op is the first keeper.

Horizon81

Are you trolling Sgt Pepper? Every1 knows there's a lot of weight attached to the new registrations, hence why they changed it from annual to bi annual back in 2001.
The OP specified a new 62 reg to collect on 1st Sep 12, and got a 12 Reg, registered in August 12. The dealers are not stupid. Sure the OP got a new car, but one that should have been discounted due to the plate it came on. Whether you agree or not, 1 day (and hence a different plate) makes quite a difference.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Horizon81 wrote: »

Are you trolling Sgt Pepper? Every1 knows there's a lot of weight attached to the new registrations, hence why they changed it from annual to bi annual back in 2001.
The OP specified a new 62 reg to collect on 1st Sep 12, and got a 12 Reg, registered in August 12. The dealers are not stupid. Sure the OP got a new car, but one that should have been discounted due to the plate it came on. Whether you agree or not, 1 day (and hence a different plate) makes quite a difference.

One day it may well do, but they are the car industries own rules and does not make it a criminal fraud. How do you prove dishonesty it this case?

Did the op really specify a 62 plate or was he drawn in by a new car and all too eager to have his private plate on it?

Tilt

Taken from the OPs OP; "I paid for the new registration of 1st September 2012". That suggests to me that he ordered the new registration (62) which is available from September 1st 2012. While he wants to use his own private plate on the car which may seem irrelevant to the new 62 plate, if/when he sells on the car and transfers his plate onto another car, this new one will then revert back to it's registered '12' plate thus reducing it's value against it's potential '62' reg value.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Tilt wrote: »

Taken from the OPs OP; "I paid for the new registration of 1st September 2012". That suggests to me that he ordered the new registration (62) which is available from September 1st 2012. While he wants to use his own private plate on the car which may seem irrelevant to the new 62 plate, if/when he sells on the car and transfers his plate onto another car, this new one will then revert back to it's registered '12' plate thus reducing it's value against it's potential '62' reg value.

Shame that's not what the paperwork says.

carricklady wrote: »

Thank you for the advice. I have got the order form out and my private plate number is on it but no registration date - the space was left blank. The finance contract starts from 1 September, my deposit was dated 1 September (62 plate) but our copy of the "Confirmation of Registration Details" (which is not signed) says 31 August: 12 plate.

The salesman said there was a genuine mistake & the dealership is at fault but has since changed his tune. I am about to write to the MD of the dealership & then Citroen. I have been calling, going into the showroom and chasing this for a month now!

It's all in the detail with these stitching bar stewards. Do you still suggest its fraud? The op had it in black and white.

Tilt

Unfortunately the OP obviously didn't check the docs before taking delivery. I would of done and would not of accepted the car under the circumstances. However, if the dealer has agreed to supply a 62 reg car (as per vehicle order which becomes a contract once signed and monies paid), then there may be a breach of contract here which means potentially the dealer will be obliged to honour the original order and supply a car which the OP specified (i.e. a 62 plate). It will mainly hinge on what is stated on the vehicle order form.

paddedjohn

Horizon81 wrote: »

Are you trolling Sgt Pepper? Every1 knows there's a lot of weight attached to the new registrations, hence why they changed it from annual to bi annual back in 2001.
The OP specified a new 62 reg to collect on 1st Sep 12, and got a 12 Reg, registered in August 12. The dealers are not stupid. Sure the OP got a new car, but one that should have been discounted due to the plate it came on. Whether you agree or not, 1 day (and hence a different plate) makes quite a difference.

Although the new system did start in Sept 2001,the biannual registrations system was in place in 1999.;)

CKhalvashi

paddedjohn wrote: »

Although the new system did start in Sept 2001,the biannual registrations system was in place in 1999.;)

Correct. The system itself is incredibly confusing, though.

I managed to confuse a French Police Officer who thought they knew the system, as my baby is registered LRO *** P, and he thought it was 1996......The car itself (as it is) was registered in 2000. The original car was from 1976.

CK

photome

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

If the chassis number is on the order form and it op is the first keeper. He has the new car he ordered and paid for.

BUT the Op ordered a new 62 plate car not a 12 plate, of course you know that really, you are just being you

photome

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Shame that's not what the paperwork says.




It's all in the detail with these stitching bar stewards. Do you still suggest its fraud? The op had it in black and white.

The OP didnt the registration details in black and white until after delivery (I assume). and as soon as they realised they tried to rectify it, with the dealer saying its a mistake that we made but we wont put right