When is a 'new' car not new?

AdrianC

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Bit like if I change a twenty for you then? I'll give you two fives instead of two tens, only difference is a minor detail in the numbers on the paper?

No, not really anything like that.

There is _no_ difference whatsoever in the condition or function or fitness-for-purpose of the car. It is _solely_ a difference in the accompanying paperwork.

The question is whether that minor difference will have any impact to the resale value of the car - impossible to determine until some point in the future - whether the OP was made aware of that difference, whether he should have been, and whether he has any recompense for that omission.

nobbysn*ts

napoleon1769 wrote: »

Thanks for all of the replies guys!

It seems that the opinion is divided, which has confused me further. I'm not really willing to accept that 'new' means 'one previous keeper' and I'm even more annoyed by the broker's dismissive attitude.

I have looked after the vehicle inside and out, but it now has between 3K and 4K miles on the clock. If I try to return this vehicle under the Distance Selling Regulations, could they refuse due to the mileage? I must stress that I only became aware of the issue today, so I haven't delayed things unnecessarily.

I'd argue they kept you in the dark over the paperwork, so you have taken action immediately you could have become aware.

Inch_High_2

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

I reckon the op has, so I don't need to.

And he can't possibly have made a mistake could he?

napoleon1769

SG27 wrote: »

Was it one of the brokers that specifically says you are the first registered keeper?

Not explicitly. It said 'new' on the website, they confirmed it was straight from the factory over the phone and the invoice included a "first registration fee". I probably should have asked the question, but I assumed that 'new' meant no previous keepers.

AdrianC wrote: »

The question is whether that minor difference will have any impact to the resale value of the car - impossible to determine until some point in the future - whether the OP was made aware of that difference, whether he should have been, and whether he has any recompense for that omission.

I know what you mean about the condition and function of the car, but the number of registered keepers has to be declared when selling the car. Putting a figure on any potential difference in price would be impossible at this stage, but I'm sure that I could have purchased a pre-registered model from a local dealership for a lower price.

nobbysn*ts

Inch_High wrote: »

And he can't possibly have made a mistake could he?

Depends on your point of view really. Either you read what the op has written, and answer the question he's asked, or you assume he's got everything wrong, second guess as to why, them ask completely pointless questions before you're convinced it's worth answering what he asked originally. Then really, the op has to decide if your opinion is worth the effort of convincing you it's worth parting with?

AdrianC

napoleon1769 wrote: »

Not explicitly. ...I assumed that 'new' meant no previous keepers.

OK...

but the number of registered keepers has to be declared when selling the car.

There's certainly no statutory requirement to do so. Nor is there necessarily any direct correlation between value or saleability and number of previous keepers. I don't believe it's even a factor taken into account by any of the published price guides. Yes, some traders choose to advertise "One owner" as a selling point - others don't.

but I'm sure that I could have purchased a pre-registered model from a local dealership for a lower price.

Entirely possible, but "I could've got it cheaper somewhere else" is not grounds for rejection.

napoleon1769

AdrianC wrote: »

I don't believe it's even a factor taken into account by any of the published price guides. Yes, some traders choose to advertise "One owner" as a selling point - others don't.

Are you seriously saying that, if I were to sell the car this evening, I would get the same price whether it had 1 or 2 registered keepers? I would imagine most buyers would assume that the car has been passed around and hasn't been cared for.

AdrianC wrote: »

Entirely possible, but "I could've got it cheaper somewhere else" is not grounds for rejection.

Absolutely, but I imagine that "I could've got it cheaper somewhere else if you had represented it accurately" is.

motorguy

napoleon1769 wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that, if I were to sell the car this evening, I would get the same price whether it had 1 or 2 registered keepers? I would imagine most buyers would assume that the car has been passed around and hasn't been cared for.


Absolutely, but I imagine that "I could've got it cheaper somewhere else if you had represented it accurately" is.

Wouldn't matter a monkeys. Certainly will matter even less over time.

I'm selling an mx5 at the minute and I've it advertised as one owner from new. V5 shows dealer owning it on day one, customer owns from day 2. Not an issue at all. Spoke to a bloke this evening about it and hecisnt even remotely concerned about whos name is on tax book first. He has arranged to come view it this saturday

motorguy

napoleon1769 wrote: »

Not explicitly. It said 'new' on the website, they confirmed it was straight from the factory over the phone and the invoice included a "first registration fee". I probably should have asked the question, but I assumed that 'new' meant no previous keepers.


I know what you mean about the condition and function of the car, but the number of registered keepers has to be declared when selling the car. Putting a figure on any potential difference in price would be impossible at this stage, but I'm sure that I could have purchased a pre-registered model from a local dealership for a lower price.

The number of owners is not a factor in either Glass's guide, glassnet or CAP.

With so many cars being pre reg these days its not an issue

motorguy

Inch_High wrote: »

And he can't possibly have made a mistake could he?

+1

The op has neatly side stepped whether or not it was in the terms and conditions by saying it was on a link they didn't view.

Handy that.