Purchased a car not disclosed it was a London Taxi...

hogspudding

Aylesbury_Duck said:

hogspudding said:

neilmcl said:

Yes, this should've been disclosed but I'd doubt it's "worth considerably less" because of it. What outcome do you want?

You've owned the car for a year now, how did you "just find out" it was a taxi?

Apparently ex taxis on average have a value of 20% less on the market, they are less desirable just like cars which have been written off, stolen and recovered or even ex Police cars. Its recently been MOT'd and tester said it was a taxi because it had been MOT'd every 6 months

Playing devil's advocate (because you'll likely face such rebuttals from the garage), did you not check the service and MOT record of the car before buying it?  It's certainly something I'd be checking before shelling out £30k on a car.    The MOT history can be seen instantly online and free of charge.

Your point is irrelevant, the retailer has a responsibility to state a material fact which would effect the decision of a consumer to purchase. 

Manxman_in_exile

I must say, if knowing a prospective purchase had been a taxi or a rental car (like one of the chaps in the Daily Mail article) would decide me against buying it, then that would be the very first question I asked a dealer.  If they said "Yes" or "I don't know", I'd be off.  If they say "No", then I'm on to a winner whether they're telling the truth or not.  But if you don't ask...

And that's ignoring whether they have to tell you without asking in the first place.

Aylesbury_Duck

hogspudding said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

hogspudding said:

neilmcl said:

Yes, this should've been disclosed but I'd doubt it's "worth considerably less" because of it. What outcome do you want?

You've owned the car for a year now, how did you "just find out" it was a taxi?

Apparently ex taxis on average have a value of 20% less on the market, they are less desirable just like cars which have been written off, stolen and recovered or even ex Police cars. Its recently been MOT'd and tester said it was a taxi because it had been MOT'd every 6 months

Playing devil's advocate (because you'll likely face such rebuttals from the garage), did you not check the service and MOT record of the car before buying it?  It's certainly something I'd be checking before shelling out £30k on a car.    The MOT history can be seen instantly online and free of charge.

Your point is irrelevant, the retailer has a responsibility to state a material fact which would effect the decision of a consumer to purchase. 

That's a no, then...

If you know the answer you want, just say so.  Saves people offering their views and you getting stroppy with them if they challenge you.  If you can't withstand a simple question like that from an anonymous forum user, I fear for your ability to deal with a dealership's contentions.

neilmcl

photome said:

neilmcl said:

photome said:

neilmcl said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

hogspudding said:

Hello all we purchased a used Mercedes from a reputable local garage back in Feb 2020 for £29500. We paid the market retail value for the car, we have just found out if was previous used as a Taxi for transport for London. The retailers advert didn't state it was an ex taxi, neither were we told at any point it was a taxi. I understand ex taxis are worth considerably less on the market than a standard used vehicle and feel we have been mislead and overcharged by quite a considerable amount.....

We are very happy with the car and have not approached the retailer as yet. I'm asking for your advice and thoughts on the best way to approach the garage regarding the matter and whether there any recourse.... TIA 

The garage was under no obligation to tell you it was a taxi.  As long as they didn't mislead you by telling you things about the car that were untrue, or withheld information you asked for, you have no comeback.  If you were happy to pay the price you paid and the advert was accurate, you weren't overcharged.  

It's entirely possible that in its previous guise as a TfL taxi, it's been looked after and maintained better than it would have been by a private owner.

Actually, not disclosing it was a taxi would be classed as misleading by omission.

I found this quote from an  article in 2019

Most dealers will probably not say anything – and in the UK there is no legal requirement to inform the buyer anyway.

have things changed or is the article wrong

Where does that article state there is "no legal requirement to inform the buyer" of material facts. The law hasn't changed, it's covered by The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as highlighted in that very article.

That sentence is from the article I found which then links to the article you read which states

Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, dealers must not misrepresent goods or include false details in advertisements.
It doesnt specifically say that a seller has to disclose that the car was previously used as a taxi, of course if the OP asked any questions about previous owners or uses that would be different

I suggest you Google "misleading omissions".

photome

neilmcl said:

photome said:

neilmcl said:

photome said:

neilmcl said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

hogspudding said:

Hello all we purchased a used Mercedes from a reputable local garage back in Feb 2020 for £29500. We paid the market retail value for the car, we have just found out if was previous used as a Taxi for transport for London. The retailers advert didn't state it was an ex taxi, neither were we told at any point it was a taxi. I understand ex taxis are worth considerably less on the market than a standard used vehicle and feel we have been mislead and overcharged by quite a considerable amount.....

We are very happy with the car and have not approached the retailer as yet. I'm asking for your advice and thoughts on the best way to approach the garage regarding the matter and whether there any recourse.... TIA 

The garage was under no obligation to tell you it was a taxi.  As long as they didn't mislead you by telling you things about the car that were untrue, or withheld information you asked for, you have no comeback.  If you were happy to pay the price you paid and the advert was accurate, you weren't overcharged.  

It's entirely possible that in its previous guise as a TfL taxi, it's been looked after and maintained better than it would have been by a private owner.

Actually, not disclosing it was a taxi would be classed as misleading by omission.

I found this quote from an  article in 2019

Most dealers will probably not say anything – and in the UK there is no legal requirement to inform the buyer anyway.

have things changed or is the article wrong

Where does that article state there is "no legal requirement to inform the buyer" of material facts. The law hasn't changed, it's covered by The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as highlighted in that very article.

That sentence is from the article I found which then links to the article you read which states

Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, dealers must not misrepresent goods or include false details in advertisements.
It doesnt specifically say that a seller has to disclose that the car was previously used as a taxi, of course if the OP asked any questions about previous owners or uses that would be different

I suggest you Google "misleading omissions".

If you are correct and the seller should have told the OP ,( of course the OP agrees with you) what does the OP do now after 12 months?

NBLondon

hogspudding said:

Please take your time to read my post correctly, I haven't said it was owned by TFL. 

I didn't say you did explicitly say that... Perhaps if you took your time to write your post correctly; your second sentence:

we have just found out if was previous used as a Taxi for transport for London

would have made more sense.

Care to answer the questions I asked?  Was it a fair price for the condition, age, model etc?  What do you think you should have paid if you had been told it was previously a PVH?

hogspudding

Aylesbury_Duck said:

hogspudding said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

hogspudding said:

neilmcl said:

Yes, this should've been disclosed but I'd doubt it's "worth considerably less" because of it. What outcome do you want?

You've owned the car for a year now, how did you "just find out" it was a taxi?

Apparently ex taxis on average have a value of 20% less on the market, they are less desirable just like cars which have been written off, stolen and recovered or even ex Police cars. Its recently been MOT'd and tester said it was a taxi because it had been MOT'd every 6 months

Playing devil's advocate (because you'll likely face such rebuttals from the garage), did you not check the service and MOT record of the car before buying it?  It's certainly something I'd be checking before shelling out £30k on a car.    The MOT history can be seen instantly online and free of charge.

Your point is irrelevant, the retailer has a responsibility to state a material fact which would effect the decision of a consumer to purchase. 

That's a no, then...

If you know the answer you want, just say so.  Saves people offering their views and you getting stroppy with them if they challenge you.  If you can't withstand a simple question like that from an anonymous forum user, I fear for your ability to deal with a dealership's contentions.

Why are you jumping to conclusions and getting stroppy yourself, I am simply correcting you because you didn't read my post correctly. Getting an attitude chap isn't helpful. 

We were advised the car had had two private owners, we were also shown the digital service history. 

Sandtree

photome said:

neilmcl said:

photome said:

neilmcl said:

photome said:

neilmcl said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

hogspudding said:

Hello all we purchased a used Mercedes from a reputable local garage back in Feb 2020 for £29500. We paid the market retail value for the car, we have just found out if was previous used as a Taxi for transport for London. The retailers advert didn't state it was an ex taxi, neither were we told at any point it was a taxi. I understand ex taxis are worth considerably less on the market than a standard used vehicle and feel we have been mislead and overcharged by quite a considerable amount.....

We are very happy with the car and have not approached the retailer as yet. I'm asking for your advice and thoughts on the best way to approach the garage regarding the matter and whether there any recourse.... TIA 

The garage was under no obligation to tell you it was a taxi.  As long as they didn't mislead you by telling you things about the car that were untrue, or withheld information you asked for, you have no comeback.  If you were happy to pay the price you paid and the advert was accurate, you weren't overcharged.  

It's entirely possible that in its previous guise as a TfL taxi, it's been looked after and maintained better than it would have been by a private owner.

Actually, not disclosing it was a taxi would be classed as misleading by omission.

I found this quote from an  article in 2019

Most dealers will probably not say anything – and in the UK there is no legal requirement to inform the buyer anyway.

have things changed or is the article wrong

Where does that article state there is "no legal requirement to inform the buyer" of material facts. The law hasn't changed, it's covered by The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as highlighted in that very article.

That sentence is from the article I found which then links to the article you read which states

Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, dealers must not misrepresent goods or include false details in advertisements.
It doesnt specifically say that a seller has to disclose that the car was previously used as a taxi, of course if the OP asked any questions about previous owners or uses that would be different

I suggest you Google "misleading omissions".

If you are correct and the seller should have told the OP ,( of course the OP agrees with you) what does the OP do now after 12 months?

And how do they actually prove garage knew the vehicle was a licensed taxi "for" TFL? 

All they have said so far is they have deduced it was a taxi by the fact some MOTs were done 6 months apart. Given the other facts I would argue its more likely a minicab than a taxi and would really want to know how many were done 6 months apart... if its just on extra MOT there could be other explanations... I've done an early MOT on a car to sell it in the past as the buyer was offering above what I thought it was worth but would only do so with a full 12 months MOT left .

Aylesbury_Duck

hogspudding said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

hogspudding said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

hogspudding said:

neilmcl said:

Yes, this should've been disclosed but I'd doubt it's "worth considerably less" because of it. What outcome do you want?

You've owned the car for a year now, how did you "just find out" it was a taxi?

Apparently ex taxis on average have a value of 20% less on the market, they are less desirable just like cars which have been written off, stolen and recovered or even ex Police cars. Its recently been MOT'd and tester said it was a taxi because it had been MOT'd every 6 months

Playing devil's advocate (because you'll likely face such rebuttals from the garage), did you not check the service and MOT record of the car before buying it?  It's certainly something I'd be checking before shelling out £30k on a car.    The MOT history can be seen instantly online and free of charge.

Your point is irrelevant, the retailer has a responsibility to state a material fact which would effect the decision of a consumer to purchase. 

That's a no, then...

If you know the answer you want, just say so.  Saves people offering their views and you getting stroppy with them if they challenge you.  If you can't withstand a simple question like that from an anonymous forum user, I fear for your ability to deal with a dealership's contentions.

Why are you jumping to conclusions and getting stroppy yourself, I am simply correcting you because you didn't read my post correctly. Getting an attitude chap isn't helpful. 

We were advised the car had had two private owners, we were also shown the digital service history. 

I read your post perfectly well, thanks, and there's no strop here, I'm not the one who's bought a £30k taxi and now has buyer's remorse.  There seems to be an emerging theme to your approach, which is to seize on the answer that you're happy with and ignore the questions and observations of others whose line of thought or questioning you don't like.  That's your prerogative but if you can't cope with a little challenge or questioning, how are you going to deal with the dealership if they contest your argument?  This might end up in court, so you will have to be a little more resilient than you've proved to be on here so far. 

What conclusion have I jumped to?  That you didn't check the service and MOT history?  So if my conclusion is wrong, what did you think when you saw the car had been MOT'd every six months?  Did you ask the dealer about that before purchase?

hogspudding

Sandtree said:

photome said:

neilmcl said:

photome said:

neilmcl said:

photome said:

neilmcl said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

hogspudding said:

Hello all we purchased a used Mercedes from a reputable local garage back in Feb 2020 for £29500. We paid the market retail value for the car, we have just found out if was previous used as a Taxi for transport for London. The retailers advert didn't state it was an ex taxi, neither were we told at any point it was a taxi. I understand ex taxis are worth considerably less on the market than a standard used vehicle and feel we have been mislead and overcharged by quite a considerable amount.....

We are very happy with the car and have not approached the retailer as yet. I'm asking for your advice and thoughts on the best way to approach the garage regarding the matter and whether there any recourse.... TIA 

The garage was under no obligation to tell you it was a taxi.  As long as they didn't mislead you by telling you things about the car that were untrue, or withheld information you asked for, you have no comeback.  If you were happy to pay the price you paid and the advert was accurate, you weren't overcharged.  

It's entirely possible that in its previous guise as a TfL taxi, it's been looked after and maintained better than it would have been by a private owner.

Actually, not disclosing it was a taxi would be classed as misleading by omission.

I found this quote from an  article in 2019

Most dealers will probably not say anything – and in the UK there is 

have things changed or is the article wrong

Where does that article state there is "no legal requirement to inform the buyer" of material facts. The law hasn't changed, it's covered by The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as highlighted in that very article.

That sentence is from the article I found which then links to the article you read which states

Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, dealers must not misrepresent goods or include false details in advertisements.
It doesnt specifically say that a seller has to disclose that the car was previously used as a taxi, of course if the OP asked any questions about previous owners or uses that would be different

I suggest you Google "misleading omissions".

If you are correct and the seller should have told the OP ,( of course the OP agrees with you) what does the OP do now after 12 months?

And how do they actually prove garage knew the vehicle was a licensed taxi "for" TFL? 

All they have said so far is they have deduced it was a taxi by the fact some MOTs were done 6 months apart. Given the other facts I would argue its more likely a minicab than a taxi and would really want to know how many were done 6 months apart... if its just on extra MOT there could be other explanations... I've done an early MOT on a car to sell it in the past as the buyer was offering above what I thought it was worth but would only do so with a full 12 months MOT left .

Because vehicle retailers have a responsibility to show due diligence prior to sale, checking to make sure its not been written off, not been an insurance loss, not been use as a Taxi, doesn't have outstanding Finance, anything which would effect the buyers decision to purchase.