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

hogspudding

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".

Thank you, clearly you know your stuff  
The consumer is protected under the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

wealdroam

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?

Its recently been MOT'd and tester said it was a taxi because it had been MOT'd every 6 months

Don't Private Hire Vehicles also have to have a six month MoT as well as taxis?

How have you decided that TfL licensed this alleged taxi?
It is not only TfL that has this six month rule for taxis and private hire vehicles.

George_Michael

hogspudding said:

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.

Of the 4 things you mention, the 3 in bold would be picked up if/when the garage does an HPI check but finding out if a vehicle had previously been used as a taxi or hire car may not be a easy thing to do especially if there had been another owner in the meantime.

Under the "Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008", a trader has some valid defences for a misleading omissions and one of these defences is:

17.—(1) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under regulation 9, 10, 11 or 12 it is a defence for that person to prove—

(a)that the commission of the offence was due to—

(i)a mistake;

(ii)reliance on information supplied to him by another person;

(iii)the act or default of another person;

(iv)an accident; or

(v)another cause beyond his control; and

(b)that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control.

so if they purchased the car and were not informed of its previous history as a taxi and as an HPI check wouldn't have picked this up, then if it ever came to legal action, there is a good possibility that their defence would be accepted.

photome

hogspudding 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".

Thank you, clearly you know your stuff  
The consumer is protected under the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

I am still not convinced that they had to tell you it was used as a Taxi. Assuming they should have what are you hoping to get from the seller a year after purchase.

williamgriffin

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. 

How old was the cat when you bought it? 

Two keepers both could easily have been private owners and both private hire drivers so that's not saying the dealer was dishonest. But two keepers in a short time and an mot every six months should have rung some alarm bells. 

I will ask you again, did you ask it it had been a private hire vehicle?

George_Michael

williamgriffin said:

How old was the cat when you bought it? 

It was a Mercedes, not a jaguar!

hogspudding

George_Michael said:

hogspudding said:

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.

Of the 4 things you mention, the 3 in bold would be picked up if/when the garage does an HPI check but finding out if a vehicle had previously been used as a taxi or hire car may not be a easy thing to do especially if there had been another owner in the meantime.

Under the "Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008", a trader has some valid defences for a misleading omissions and one of these defences is:

17.—(1) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under regulation 9, 10, 11 or 12 it is a defence for that person to prove—

(a)that the commission of the offence was due to—

(i)a mistake;

(ii)reliance on information supplied to him by another person;

(iii)the act or default of another person;

(iv)an accident; or

(v)another cause beyond his control; and

(b)that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control.

so if they purchased the car and were not informed of its previous history as a taxi and as an HPI check wouldn't have picked this up, then if it ever came to legal action, there is a good possibility that their defence would be accepted.

Motorcheck advice if the car is an ex taxi, all auction houses entry requirements state the vendor must declare if the car was an ex taxi, car retailers have a responsibility when they purchase a car to retail they have to show due diligence by confirming the car hasn't been a taxi. 

k3lvc

For reference @hogspudding where was it purchased - MB dealer or some other 'dealer'. Did you ask to see the V5 before you purchased to see who the previous owner was ?

Much as you want to play 'misleading omissions' this isn't one that'll be on records accessible to a dealer unless it's been declared to them (and that you can prove it was declared to them)

On that basis you're deep into 'buyers remorse' territory and learning to ask the right questions next time - especially with certain types/models of cars

hogspudding

williamgriffin said:

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. 

How old was the cat when you bought it? 

Two keepers both could easily have been private owners and both private hire drivers so that's not saying the dealer was dishonest. But two keepers in a short time and an mot every six months should have rung some alarm bells. 

I will ask you again, did you ask it it had been a private hire vehicle?

williamgriffin said:

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. 

How old was the cat when you bought it? 

Two keepers both could easily have been private owners and both private hire drivers so that's not saying the dealer was dishonest. But two keepers in a short time and an mot every six months should have rung some alarm bells. 

I will ask you again, did you ask it it had been a private hire vehicle?

williamgriffin said:

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. 

How old was the cat when you bought it? 

Two keepers both could easily have been private owners and both private hire drivers so that's not saying the dealer was dishonest. But two keepers in a short time and an mot every six months should have rung some alarm bells. 

I will ask you again, did you ask it it had been a private hire vehicle?

"I will ask you again, did you ask it it had been a private hire vehicle?"
I shouldn't have to. I didn't buy the car privately, I bought it from a retailer. Therefore I am protected by the CRA 2015 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. It's there responsibility to show due diligence and check the car history thoroughly and divulge such information 

williamgriffin

k3lvc said:

For reference @hogspudding where was it purchased - MB dealer or some other 'dealer'. Did you ask to see the V5 before you purchased to see who the previous owner was ?

Much as you want to play 'misleading omissions' this isn't one that'll be on records accessible to a dealer unless it's been declared to them (and that you can prove it was declared to them)

On that basis you're deep into 'buyers remorse' territory and learning to ask the right questions next time - especially with certain types/models of cars

The V5 won't show the first of two keepers.