Brought ex rental car without knowing from dealership

peachyprice

Oakdene wrote: »

No because unless you tell people they wont know

Unless OP shows them the V5

Oakdene

peachyprice wrote: »

Unless OP shows them the V5

Hopefully they'll pay as little attention to the V5 as OP did

KeithP

WilfieK wrote: »

I feel like ive been ripped off and paid over the odds as its going to be harder to sell on with it being an ex rental car.

Why is it going to be harder to sell on?
The dealer you bought it from had no problem selling it to you.

Sorry, but you had an opportunity to ask to see the V5 before you made the purchase.
I guess you chose not to.

neilmcl

k3lvc wrote: »

Either forget about it and enjoy your car or spend the next x months/years listening/feeling for every possible fault that could have been caused by the previous owner(s)


Bear in mind though that although it's had one owner it may also have genuinely had one driver throughout that period

Precisely, just because it was owned by a rental company doesn't mean the car itself was part of the daily rental fleet. Besides, when you purchase any used car from any source you have absolutely no idea how it was driven in the past.

OP, how was the car advertised, exactly?

Have you spoken to Trading Standards?

unholyangel

Tbf 23k miles is nearly 500 a week. That along with the age being only a year screams rental car imo.

The mileage itself indicates heavy commercial use. If it were a company car, they'd likely keep it for a minimum of 3 years.

However a rental car having more drivers could also be a good thing. If you had 1 driver/owner with bad habits, that would do more damage to the car than say 4 drivers who each had the car a week or two. Plus people tend to treat other peoples property better than they treat their own.

Really though, unless the car fails to conform to contract, you don't have any right to a remedy.

neilmcl

peachyprice wrote: »

Not necessarily, depending on where it was based. I thought it was on the high side compared to sub 1yo cars I usually hire, they are usually around the 10k or less mark. But OP was happy to pay for a high mileage 1yo car.

Unless the dealership have been dishonest, which from what OP has written they haven't, there are no consumer rights OP could rely upon.

Not quite as simple as that. Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act (2008) it's unlawful to withhold any information that could effect the purchase decision of a car at the point of sale.

Dealerships have lost courts cases in regards this in the past.

Just one example -
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/middlesbrough-garage-sold-car-one-11481756

verityboo

I wonder where the OP thinks a 1 year old car would come from (ex-demonstators tend to be sold at 6 months)

I would be glad it is ex rental rather than a complete lemon that the previous owner got rid of at 1 year old because the recurring faults weren't getting fixed

unholyangel

donny_jim wrote: »

You do have a lot more rights buying from a dealership, the first question to ask them is, is the mileage genuine, I would find this rather low for a rental car, next it's a matter of going to whichever consumer rights department deals with car sales. Good luck.

neilmcl wrote: »

Not quite as simple as that. Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act (2008) it's unlawful to withhold any information that could effect the purchase decision of a car at the point of sale.

Not any information. Theres a list and it must fall into one of the categories on that list. I'm not convinced who the previous owner is would fall into any of those categories.

The full list follows:
(a) the existence or nature of the product,
(b) the main characteristics of the product
(c) the extent of the trader’s commitments
(d) the motives for the commercial practice
(e) the nature of the sales process
(f) any statement or symbol relating to direct or indirect
sponsorship or approval of the trader or the product
(g) the price or the manner in which the price is calculated
(h) the existence of a specific price advantage
(i) the need for a service, part, replacement or repair
(j) the nature, attributes and rights of the trader or his agent
(k) the consumer’s rights or the risks he may face.


The ‘main characteristics of the product’ include:
(a) availability of the product
(b) benefits of the product
(c) risks of the product
(d) execution of the product
(e) composition of the product
(f) accessories of the product
(g) after-sale customer assistance concerning the product
(h) the handling of complaints about the product
(i) the method and date of manufacture of the product
(j) the method and date of provision of the product
k) delivery of the product
(l) fitness for purpose of the product
(m) usage of the product
(n) quantity of the product
(o) specification of the product
(p) geographical or commercial origin of the product
(q) results to be expected from use of the product
(r) results and material features of tests or checks carried out
on the product.

The ‘nature, attributes and rights of the trader or his agent’
include:
(a) identity
(b) assets
(c) qualifications
(d) status
(e) approval
(f) affiliations or connections
(g) ownership of industrial, commercial or intellectual
property rights
(h) awards and distinctions

eddddy

WilfieK wrote: »

Nothing wrong with the car but I wouldnt have purchased it as I dont like the idea of owing an ex rental car. These cars are driven my numerous people and in my experience, dont treat them with much care.

Actually, this article suggests otherwise: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/advice/why-you-should-buy-a-hire-car/

TBH, I think I am more cautious when driving a rental car, than driving my own car, for the reasons suggested in the article:

Fear of red tape and £1,000 policy excesses could well be to thank for people taking better care of rental cars. A spokesman for dealer group Pendragon said: “Rental cars are often in better shape than ones on lease or fleet, as the drivers know they have to pay for any damage.”

And:

Wear and tear is closely monitored by hire firms, too. Cunningham said: “The average Hertz vehicle has oil, water and tyre pressures checked every six days. This is certainly not the case for the average privately owned car.”

neilmcl

unholyangel wrote: »

Not any information. Theres a list and it must fall into one of the categories on that list. I'm not convinced who the previous owner is would fall into any of those categories.

[STRIKE]Where did that list come from?[/STRIKE] That above list is specific to Misleading Actions of the trader, the OP's case would be dealt as a Misleading Omission.

The legislation is quite clear:

Misleading omissions

6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—

(a)the commercial practice omits material information,
(b)the commercial practice hides material information,
(c)the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d)the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,
and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.