I800 brought but never told it was from a hire complany

motorguy

iolanthe07 wrote: »

Most cars/vans a year or so old will be ex-rental.

It always bemuses me where people think these tens of thousands of cars. usually in standard spec with just varying metallic paint and < 12 months old come from on dealers forecourts....

James2k

motorguy wrote: »

That surprises me greatly on brand new cars given they are under manufacturers warranty and in theory they could try to hold you liable for damage..... but i'm sure you're telling us the truth....

Presumably not relevant here anyway as the O/P has had his van for 2 years with no transmission issues.

Secondly, that would put me off buying that type of car irrespective. If it cant cope with being driven then it wouldnt be a car i'd want to own. Buying a privately owned car wont protect you from that.

Also i'm not sure of your point anyway - if a car had a bad transmission fault when i was test driving it i wouldnt buy it anyway even if it was was privately owned.

"Some hire cars get driven badly, some privately owned cars get driven badly" - all the more reason, surely to buy on condition rather than who the previous owner was?

Erm, ok believe me or not, doesn't really worry me.

The cars i've been given as hire cars have all felt far worse in terms of the general 'tightness' than both of my, older (than the hire) cars.

Not sure what your point is either, plenty of people wouldn't buy them, hence why hire companies obfuscate their names on the v5. Like it or not its a fact. Regardless of whether you personally would choose to buy one or not.

Now whether its an ACTUAL factor affecting the reliability of the car, i would defer to you on that one because of your experience. But people arent always logical. myself included

Scrapit

OP what's the problem, is it a good van or not? If not why buy it? If it is, no problem.
The only way to ensure you get a vehicle that hasn't been driven badly is to buy new and even then those delivery miles might not have been driven in a manner you see fit.

motorguy

James2k wrote: »

Erm, ok believe me or not, doesn't really worry me.

The cars i've been given as hire cars have all felt far worse in terms of the general 'tightness' than both of my, older (than the hire) cars.

Not sure what your point is either, plenty of people wouldn't buy them, hence why hire companies obfuscate their names on the v5. Like it or not its a fact. Regardless of whether you personally would choose to buy one or not.

Now whether its an ACTUAL factor affecting the reliability of the car, i would defer to you on that one because of your experience. But people arent always logical. myself included

So you're saying you've regularly experienced significant transmission problems on almost new hire cars and you've not bothered to inform the hire company, ever? OK.....

The two recent ex hire cars i've bought were both VW and both from main dealers. Both of them i saw coming off the transporters, and both were immacultely presented. The latter - a Passat - subsequently had DPF issues but i have no reason to believe that that was due to it being an ex hire car. It happens apparently more often than VW would like to admit.

You certainly couldnt tell by seeing them of driving them that they were ex hire cars.

It does bemuse me that people will quite happily pay a premium for an ex demo car (translated as being the loaner they lend out to any Tom, !!!! or Harry when their car is in being serviced) over a hire car.

There are of course - like any privately owned cars - abused ones and non abused ones. The trick is to buy ones that are Grade A stock (usually obtained by main dealers) and avoid the ones that have made it through to auction or car supermarkets (which can be "scruffy").

Hire car companies keep a much tighter grip on the use / abuse of their cars these days and they also usually dispose of them before they are even due their first service, so the view that they are deglected and unserviced is a modern day myth.

I'm actually bemused that you think you can "feel" if a car at 10,000 miles was an ex hire car based on not being as "tight" as say, one sitting on a forecourt that has allegedly one owner. I'd be fairly certain that the bulk of people hiring a Corsa or Astra are doing so because they need to get from A -> B, not because they think they've hired a rally car.

I'm also bemused that people think ANY car < a year old and sitting on a dealers forecourt has been anything other than a loan car or hire car of some sort. In fact i'd go so far as to say, if it WAS privately owned, WHY did the owner sell it so quickly? Were there problems?

So to answer your question as to WHY hire companies are reluctant to use their own names :-
(a) often they do - my Passat was ex AVIS
(b) they often have subsiduary companies anyway
(c) they know that there are still decades old unsubstantiated stereotypes and myths still being propagated about hire cars.

And to get back to the point in hand, no the O/P has no recourse some two years down the line over a vehicle they bought when they didnt ask the questions or make clear in the first place that they had a particular aversion to ex hire vehicles.

James2k

Wow. You really were a car salesman.

If you are happy with your ex hires more power to you, and if you noticed i said in my last post that i would defer to your experience in the industry about whether ex hire cars are ACTUALLY less reliable than 'normal' ones.

For me, i don't want one. that's it.

And no not every car i have been given has had a duff tranny, two recent ones have had hard shifting and one a slipping off idle (a skoda with dsg, i know what dsg SHOULD feel like as i have it on one of mine). Personally i dont even slightly care enough to tell anyone about it, sorry but that's how it is, i use the car to go to training i come back, i want to go home.

Erm, did i say i could 'feel' if a car had been an ex hire? no i did not, i said that the hire cars i have had have felt less tight (looser, more worn, clunky) than my own cars which are both older than the hire cars.

EssexExile

I bought a one year old ex-rental van & it only lasted me 17 years, it's just not good enough.

Cetshwayo

Now you won't know since the last keepers details have now been removed from the V5c by the DVLA as part of its commitment to the new GDPR legislation.

Anyone worried about where their car/van has come from may be best advised to buy new.

neilmcl

Herzlos wrote: »

It's usually an obscure holding company so that it's less obvious. ERAC being Enterprise Rent-A-Car, but you'd probably not make the connection from just the V5.

The fact it would be a company rather than an individual is enough to throw up warning signs (for some).

System

EssexExile wrote: »

I bought a one year old ex-rental van & it only lasted me 17 years, it's just not good enough.

I bought a 2 year old 38,000 mile ex-Enterprise Car Rental Mondeo which is now 9 years old with 138k on. 7 years and 100,000 miles in my ownership its not broken down on me and other than a couple of suspension bushes, a track rod end and a short bit of rubber hose from the DPF filter to a sensor hasn't needed anything other than service items.



Disgusting isn't it?

DoaM

Tarambor wrote: »

and other than a couple of suspension bushes, a track rod end and a short bit of rubber hose from the DPF filter to a sensor .....

I was waiting for that to develop into Trigger's Broom.