Sold the wrong car

Neddone

Thanks Matttye.


I am in the process of getting legal representation - I just wanted to get a few opinions as to which way to go with this.


I did not purchase the vehicle as a business, I bought it as a 'consumer' as my main use vehicle, using personal funds. I will also use it to go on site, when required, as part of my job as an event manager, hence why I stipulated that I needed 4WD capability as a requirement from this vehicle.


I must admit that I didn't see any mention of it only being a 2WD model in the original advert, and I genuinely thought that this was a 4WD vehicle. I would have thought that the sales person, knowing that I wanted to buy a 4WD vehicle, would have said at some point during our discussions about the vehicles 4WD system (which we had in-depth discussions about) that we were not in fact test driving a 4WD model. This is what I am taking exception to - I blindly went on about the 4WD capability for about an hour, and not once was I told otherwise. Anyway, that's all water under the bridge now, and a job for a solicitor.......................

TuppenceWorth

Please do update when you can

Mercdriver

Neddone wrote: »

Thanks Matttye.


I am in the process of getting legal representation - I just wanted to get a few opinions as to which way to go with this.


I did not purchase the vehicle as a business, I bought it as a 'consumer' as my main use vehicle, using personal funds. I will also use it to go on site, when required, as part of my job as an event manager, hence why I stipulated that I needed 4WD capability as a requirement from this vehicle.


I must admit that I didn't see any mention of it only being a 2WD model in the original advert, and I genuinely thought that this was a 4WD vehicle. I would have thought that the sales person, knowing that I wanted to buy a 4WD vehicle, would have said at some point during our discussions about the vehicles 4WD system (which we had in-depth discussions about) that we were not in fact test driving a 4WD model. This is what I am taking exception to - I blindly went on about the 4WD capability for about an hour, and not once was I told otherwise. Anyway, that's all water under the bridge now, and a job for a solicitor.......................

I don't think you have a case since the ad did state that it was 2WD and you were negligent in that you failed to notice it. If you had noticed it, presumably you wouldn't have gone to the dealers and therefore wouldn't have interacted with the salesman at all. Make sure you tell the solicitor about your negligence to see the 2WD reference in the ad or else you will not get accurate advice.

Did you once directly ask the salesman whether it had 4 wheel drive? If not, as I said earlier it can boil down to misunderstanding, and you will get nowhere.

photome

Neddone wrote: »

Thanks Matttye.


I am in the process of getting legal representation - I just wanted to get a few opinions as to which way to go with this.


I did not purchase the vehicle as a business, I bought it as a 'consumer' as my main use vehicle, using personal funds. I will also use it to go on site, when required, as part of my job as an event manager, hence why I stipulated that I needed 4WD capability as a requirement from this vehicle.


I must admit that I didn't see any mention of it only being a 2WD model in the original advert, and I genuinely thought that this was a 4WD vehicle. I would have thought that the sales person, knowing that I wanted to buy a 4WD vehicle, would have said at some point during our discussions about the vehicles 4WD system (which we had in-depth discussions about) that we were not in fact test driving a 4WD model. This is what I am taking exception to - I blindly went on about the 4WD capability for about an hour, and not once was I told otherwise. Anyway, that's all water under the bridge now, and a job for a solicitor.......................

BUT in your OP and in this post you have not said that you asked "does this car have 4WD" which suggests you didnt ,coupled with the ad saying its 2wd, i would suggest you are wasting money with a solicitor

Scrapit

Also in what way is this vehicle you have unsuitable? So far you've had some traction issues on a roundabout which you may well have had in the 4wd version. Any other problems showing it to be the "wrong" motor?

AdrianC

Neddone wrote: »

I did not purchase the vehicle as a business, I bought it as a 'consumer' as my main use vehicle, using personal funds. I will also use it to go on site, when required, as part of my job as an event manager, hence why I stipulated that I needed 4WD capability as a requirement from this vehicle.

You are buying it with the intent of using it for business purposes, and those business purposes are directly dictating the requirements - more than that, they're directly dictating the particular requirement that this dispute is over.

Sorry, but that means it is not a consumer purchase.

motorguy

Neddone wrote: »

Thanks Matttye.


I am in the process of getting legal representation - I just wanted to get a few opinions as to which way to go with this.


I did not purchase the vehicle as a business, I bought it as a 'consumer' as my main use vehicle, using personal funds. I will also use it to go on site, when required, as part of my job as an event manager, hence why I stipulated that I needed 4WD capability as a requirement from this vehicle.


I must admit that I didn't see any mention of it only being a 2WD model in the original advert, and I genuinely thought that this was a 4WD vehicle. I would have thought that the sales person, knowing that I wanted to buy a 4WD vehicle, would have said at some point during our discussions about the vehicles 4WD system (which we had in-depth discussions about) that we were not in fact test driving a 4WD model. This is what I am taking exception to - I blindly went on about the 4WD capability for about an hour, and not once was I told otherwise. Anyway, that's all water under the bridge now, and a job for a solicitor.......................

Worth noting that just because a solicitor is looking at it for you, it doesnt mean you're going to "win".

Solicitors will happily take the fee for an initial consultation and the (excessive) cost of cracking out a few letters to the dealer. That may work in gaining you some leverage but perhaps nothing that approaching it correctly in the first place and / or eating a bit of humble pie wouldnt achieve anyway and at no cost.

I really cant see it getting anywhere in court - you've now chosen a very expensive route to take it there with IMHO little hope of winning.

The dealer may "facilitate" you in some way by doing some sort of cross deal but somewhere along the line they will be making even more money out of it.

James2k

AdrianC wrote: »

You are buying it with the intent of using it for business purposes, and those business purposes are directly dictating the requirements - more than that, they're directly dictating the particular requirement that this dispute is over.

Sorry, but that means it is not a consumer purchase.

Rubbish, its a car he uses for work as well as other things, if this were the case most of us here would be business to business.

Most of us would look at everything the car is used for and buy accordingly, be it good mpg, 5 doors to fit extra colleagues for an occasional meeting trip, anything. doesn't automatically make you a b2b purchaser..

AdrianC

James2k wrote: »

Rubbish, its a car he uses for work as well as other things, if this were the case most of us here would be business to business.

Most of us would look at everything the car is used for and buy accordingly, be it good mpg, 5 doors to fit extra colleagues for an occasional meeting trip, anything. doesn't automatically make you a b2b purchaser..

Commuting does not equal business use.
"Occasional meeting trips"? I hope you've got business use on your insurance...

motorguy

AdrianC wrote: »

Commuting does not equal business use.
"Occasional meeting trips"? I hope you've got business use on your insurance...

The O/P has subsequently clarified this, so your point is now moot.