Arnold clark sales issue

burnslor73

Sorry this is such a long post but here goes...

Approx 3 weeks ago my mum bought a car from AC on finance/PCP. She had the car 3 days when it refused to start (Ford C Max, 67 plate with less than 4000 miles on the clock). After a LOT of hassle they finally got someone to come and uplift it but were initially refusing to give her a replacement car. She got one (Fiat 500, about the size of a hairdryer!). After over a week of delays they finally got back to her on Friday last week to say the car can't be fixed, they were sending it back to Ford. She was supposed to go in next week to pick a new car but didn't want to wait any longer than necessary so we went in yesterday to have a look.

They did not have a like-for-like car so she chose a slightly more expensive one. The salesman assured us that due to the Consumer Credit Act they had to put her in a better position than she was in when she signed for the original car.

She had initially paid $100 (sorry, no pound sign on this keyboard!) for delivery of the car which they said they would waive for this new car. She had also initially paid for the service plan and extended warranty, coming in about $750. As the new car was more expensive the salesman agreed to use the $750 towards the additional cost of the new car and they put her payments up by approx $2.80 per month (not a big deal) but we've noticed today that the balloon payment has increased by $780, meaning she's now in a worse position than she was in before! They've also added an extra $170 for delivery and registration plate that they had agreed not to charge. In addition to that, she no longer has the extended warranty or the service plan (although these were not a big deal for her). They were also trying to do her out of the full tank of fuel she had put in the first car before it broke down.

She's going back in to confront them tomorrow but is there anything in particular she should be pointing out/saying to them? I have already put a formal complaint into the head office in Glasgow but they've not responded, other than a generic GDPR response. I will be emailing the CEO tomorrow after my mum's had the chance to speak with the branch manager.

Clive_Woody

Ask them to show you a copy of the Consumer Credit Act and then ask them to point out where it says they have to sell her a more expensive car when the first one they sold her dies?

(.....hint, this is a load of utter B*ll*cks they told her and nothing but an attempt to squeeze more cash out of her).

They are taking the mickey and using this as a cash making exercise. Selling her a more expensive car, with bigger monthly payments, larger final payment and losing the warranty and service plan. Absolute bunch of crooks (do a search on here for Arnold Clark, they have a long history of dishonesty)

AdrianC

Was she planning on paying the balloon to buy the car at the end of the period?

She's in the same position during the credit period, but has a car that is expected to be more valuable at the end of it.


If she doesn't like it, then she does have a legal right to simply have a refund for the car she's returned, rather than exchanging it.

caprikid1

She is borrowing a better car, after she has finished borrowing it she has the option to buy a better car. The better car is going to be worth more at the end and she pays a bit more ??? Can't see that's unreasonable.

Herzlos

AdrianC wrote: »

If she doesn't like it, then she does have a legal right to simply have a refund for the car she's returned, rather than exchanging it.

Very much this. If they don't have a like for like, you've got no obligation to buy another one from that branch or chain. Get the refund and then find another car for about the same as she was willing to pay.

loskie

Or you could sue AC for breach of contract as they have not provided goods of sufficient quality and durability. It is their problem that they cannot replace it with an exact substitute why should the claimant cough up for that?

AdrianC

loskie wrote: »

Or you could sue AC for breach of contract as they have not provided goods of sufficient quality and durability.

For which they're obliged to... refund.

Clive_Woody

caprikid1 wrote: »

She is borrowing a better car, after she has finished borrowing it she has the option to buy a better car. The better car is going to be worth more at the end and she pays a bit more ??? Can't see that's unreasonable.

Maybe she was perfectly happy with her initial choice of car (apart from the faults) and was ready to buy that at the end of the deal. Being coerced into getting a "better car" is the unreasonable part if the dealer lied to achieve this and get more money from her.

AdrianC

Clive_Woody wrote: »

Maybe she was perfectly happy with her initial choice of car (apart from the faults) and was ready to buy that at the end of the deal.

It's absolutely impossible to say for certain, three weeks into what is presumably a multi-year contract, what the choice will be at the end of it.

Perhaps the car will have been written off.
Perhaps the buyer will not be in a position to buy.
Perhaps the contract will have been terminated one way or another before then.

There is no way that it can be predicted with anything like sufficient certainty to base any restitution on at this stage.

B'sides, the law is quite clear. The buyer has a legal right to a full refund where there are substantive faults within the first 30 days. That overrides any deal the supplier may wish to offer.