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

hogspudding

born_again said:

williamgriffin said:

k3lvc said:

williamgriffin said:

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. 

Depends on when the change of keepers has been - if you get view of it before the transaction takes place it'll show at least the previous keeper - depending on the age of the car and the last change of keeper it may also show the one before.

If you wait until you receive the V5 in your name you've lost all that info

OP says there were two keepers prior to him, the V5 won't have shown the first. 

V5 does not show who the last keeper was anymore....

born_again said:

williamgriffin said:

k3lvc said:

williamgriffin said:

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. 

Depends on when the change of keepers has been - if you get view of it before the transaction takes place it'll show at least the previous keeper - depending on the age of the car and the last change of keeper it may also show the one before.

If you wait until you receive the V5 in your name you've lost all that info

OP says there were two keepers prior to him, the V5 won't have shown the first. 

V5 does not show who the last keeper was anymore....

It did in feb 2020

George_Michael

hogspudding said:

I don't have buyer remorse, we love the car and I want to keep it  
You miss the point that under the CRA 2015 its the retailers responsible to describe the car accurately.

To the best of their knowledge and after making reasonable due diligence checks.
If they carried out a full HPI check, this may well be enough to satisfy a court that they had done enough.

hogspudding

k3lvc said:

"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 

This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la - I'm not listening'

Good luck in court with that attitude but I suspect you'll be sorely disappointed

This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la - I'm not listening'

Ditto

hogspudding

George_Michael said:

hogspudding said:

 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 

But you don't appear to be asking for thoughts and advice as it's perfectly clear that you have already made your mind up and are not in the least bit interested in anyone views that don't agree with what you wish to be told.

With respect Neilmc1 told me exactly what I needed to know. Do you have anything to add to help like he did ? 

hogspudding

George_Michael said:

hogspudding said:

 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 

But you don't appear to be asking for thoughts and advice as it's perfectly clear that you have already made your mind up and are not in the least bit interested in anyone views that don't agree with what you wish to be told.

No, I am asking what would you do if you had spent 30k of your hard saved earnings on a family car that turned out be be a non-disclosed taxi ? 

noitsnotme

hogspudding said:

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  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 .

I have since checked with Motorcheck and Vehicle Ancestry, both have confirmed it was a taxi registered for TFL. These are checks the retailer should of carried out in their due diligence.

Presumably you could have also performed those checks prior to purchasing.  I guess hindsight is a wonderful thing, as they say 🤷‍♂️

hogspudding

williamgriffin said:

hogspudding said:

Aylesbury_Duck 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. 

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?

Again, what is your point ? Again, you are jumping to conclusions. I said in the OP we are really happy with the car, did you read that bit? Read it again and understand it.

You haven't actually posted anything relevant or pertinent, and  you certainly haven't added anything that was helpful. You seem to have a continued theme of the above.... 

If you're happy then what's the point of this thread?

The only thing I see happening is your blood pressure rising. 

The point is, it should have been described as an ex taxi and priced accordingly. 

hogspudding

George_Michael said:

hogspudding said:

I don't have buyer remorse, we love the car and I want to keep it  
You miss the point that under the CRA 2015 its the retailers responsible to describe the car accurately.

To the best of their knowledge and after making reasonable due diligence checks.
If they carried out a full HPI check, this may well be enough to satisfy a court that they had done enough.

The thing is they clearly haven't, have they...... Plenty of vehicle checks offer a Taxi history check, in fact the vehicle ancestry check specifically checks for Taxi ownership. 

unholyangel

Firstly, taxi refers to taxicabs - that use a meter on a time X distance combination and can ply for hires in the ranks. In London (and other cities), I believe these are exclusively "black cabs" (aka Hackney's). They are classed as public transport and cannot refuse a hire without good reason. 

Minicabs are private hire. They can't ply for trade and can only pick up pre-booked hires. 

Both of these require 6 monthly hackney tests. They are not MOTs and iirc, they display completely different on the "checkmot" tool thingy. These tests are more strict than MOTs. So the car would have had to pass a higher standard.

However, part of the reason taxis/minicabs values are lower is because they tend to spend a LOT of time idling or stuck in traffic. Excessive idling in particular adds invisible miles to the engine. Engine replacements are not cheap. 

Also, in my experience....drivers don't dispose of an essential tool of their trade for no good reason. There are a few who change cars every few years but the majority tend to stick with one through expensive repairs simply because to get a new vehicle "plated", there is normally strict criteria set by the licencing authority (less than 3 years old, wheelchair accessible or electric) and even then....sometimes there's a long waiting list.

But lastly, and more importantly, if you've had it a year and haven't had any issues with it then chances are it's not a lemon. If it gives you peace of mind, perhaps get an inspection from someone skilled. 

hogspudding

noitsnotme said:

hogspudding said:

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  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 .

I have since checked with Motorcheck and Vehicle Ancestry, both have confirmed it was a taxi registered for TFL. These are checks the retailer should of carried out in their due diligence.

Presumably you could have also performed those checks prior to purchasing.  I guess hindsight is a wonderful thing, as they say 🤷‍♂️

No..... You trust the retailer. The CRA 2015 protects all consumers. When you buy range eggs from Tesco, you expect Tesco to ensure the egg is free range. If it wasn't free range what would you think or do ? 

If you buy a 5k leather sofa from John Lewis and find out its actually PVC what would you do, how would you feel ? You'd justifiably ripped off......