We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Purchased a car not disclosed it was a London Taxi...
Options
Comments
-
You wanted a Mercedes and got a Mercedes.hogspudding said:
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 ?noitsnotme said:
Presumably you could have also performed those checks prior to purchasing. I guess hindsight is a wonderful thing, as they say 🤷♂️hogspudding said:
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.Sandtree said:
And how do they actually prove garage knew the vehicle was a licensed taxi "for" TFL?photome said:
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?neilmcl said:
I suggest you Google "misleading omissions".photome said:
That sentence is from the article I found which then links to the article you read which statesneilmcl said:
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.photome said:
I found this quote from an article in 2019neilmcl said:
Actually, not disclosing it was a taxi would be classed as misleading by omission.Aylesbury_Duck said:
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.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
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.
Most dealers will probably not say anything – and in the UK there is anyway.
have things changed or is the article wrong
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
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 .
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......2 -
Yeah, I may feel like that, but you've still not said what you want. You've said you're happy with the car, but you're obviously not or you wouldn't have spent 7 pages arguing about it.hogspudding said:
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 ?noitsnotme said:
Presumably you could have also performed those checks prior to purchasing. I guess hindsight is a wonderful thing, as they say 🤷♂️hogspudding said:
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.Sandtree said:
And how do they actually prove garage knew the vehicle was a licensed taxi "for" TFL?photome said:
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?neilmcl said:
I suggest you Google "misleading omissions".photome said:
That sentence is from the article I found which then links to the article you read which statesneilmcl said:
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.photome said:
I found this quote from an article in 2019neilmcl said:
Actually, not disclosing it was a taxi would be classed as misleading by omission.Aylesbury_Duck said:
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.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
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.
Most dealers will probably not say anything – and in the UK there is anyway.
have things changed or is the article wrong
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
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 .
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......
So what do you want the dealer to do about it?1 -
I wouldn’t trust a car dealer as far as I could throw them! I ALWAYS do my own checks no matter what the spiv tells me. And I ask ALL the pertinent questions before deciding to buy. Car dealers are on the same low rung of the trust ladder as estate agents, PC World advisors and Kwikfit mechanics!!hogspudding said:
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 ?noitsnotme said:
Presumably you could have also performed those checks prior to purchasing. I guess hindsight is a wonderful thing, as they say 🤷♂️hogspudding said:
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.Sandtree said:
And how do they actually prove garage knew the vehicle was a licensed taxi "for" TFL?photome said:
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?neilmcl said:
I suggest you Google "misleading omissions".photome said:
That sentence is from the article I found which then links to the article you read which statesneilmcl said:
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.photome said:
I found this quote from an article in 2019neilmcl said:
Actually, not disclosing it was a taxi would be classed as misleading by omission.Aylesbury_Duck said:
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.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
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.
Most dealers will probably not say anything – and in the UK there is anyway.
have things changed or is the article wrong
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
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 .
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......
How do you test if an egg is free range or not? Eggcheck? Egg Ancestry?!
If the leather sofa turned up on delivery day and it was PVC I would refuse delivery. Not leave it a year and then ask for a resolution 🤷♂️5 -
I'd continue to enjoy the car that you own. Whilst I agree the dealer had a duty to inform you of the car's history, and by a possible omission may in fact be guilty of an offence, I don't agree that the car is likely to be of significant lower value because of it, and probably won't come to light either if or when you sell it on.hogspudding said:
To be honest I'm not sure, we love the car and it took me ages to find it. But, there's a very big cloud over it because of its previous history. That's my question in the OP, what would you do, that's what I am asking.photome said:
I have asked a few times now. What do you want and what are you going to do ?as you are now so sure that you have the law behind youhogspudding said:williamgriffin said:
How old was the cat when you bought it?hogspudding said:
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.Aylesbury_Duck said:
That's a no, then...hogspudding said:
Your point is irrelevant, the retailer has a responsibility to state a material fact which would effect the decision of a consumer to purchase.Aylesbury_Duck said:
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.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
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.
We were advised the car had had two private owners, we were also shown the digital service history.
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:
How old was the cat when you bought it?hogspudding said:
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.Aylesbury_Duck said:
That's a no, then...hogspudding said:
Your point is irrelevant, the retailer has a responsibility to state a material fact which would effect the decision of a consumer to purchase.Aylesbury_Duck said:
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.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
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.
We were advised the car had had two private owners, we were also shown the digital service history.
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?"williamgriffin said:
How old was the cat when you bought it?hogspudding said:
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.Aylesbury_Duck said:
That's a no, then...hogspudding said:
Your point is irrelevant, the retailer has a responsibility to state a material fact which would effect the decision of a consumer to purchase.Aylesbury_Duck said:
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.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
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.
We were advised the car had had two private owners, we were also shown the digital service history.
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 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 information1 -
If I was happy with the condition of the car, it's service history, mileage at purchase etc I would do precisely nothing, other than continue to drive it. Every time I've used an executive car service they've been driven with extreme care and have been in an immaculate condition inside and out, so I would rather buy one of their former cars than, say, an ex company car which will likely have been treated poorly other than maintaining the service interval.hogspudding said:
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 ?George_Michael said:
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.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
3 -
Are you.....Aled's iPad?hogspudding said:
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.Aylesbury_Duck said:
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.hogspudding said:
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.Aylesbury_Duck said:
That's a no, then...hogspudding said:
Your point is irrelevant, the retailer has a responsibility to state a material fact which would effect the decision of a consumer to purchase.Aylesbury_Duck said:
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.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
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.
We were advised the car had had two private owners, we were also shown the digital service history.
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?
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....
Have I missed your answer to the question about whether or not you checked the MOT history, or did I jump to the correct conclusion about that?1 -
How do you know it wasn't?hogspudding said:
The point is, it should have been described as an ex taxi and priced accordingly.williamgriffin said:
If you're happy then what's the point of this thread?hogspudding said:
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.Aylesbury_Duck said:
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.hogspudding said:
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.Aylesbury_Duck said:
That's a no, then...hogspudding said:
Your point is irrelevant, the retailer has a responsibility to state a material fact which would effect the decision of a consumer to purchase.Aylesbury_Duck said:
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.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
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.
We were advised the car had had two private owners, we were also shown the digital service history.
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?
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....
The only thing I see happening is your blood pressure rising.2 -
Oh come on, he's done his research and paid 20% over the odds.Aylesbury_Duck said:
How do you know it wasn't?hogspudding said:
The point is, it should have been described as an ex taxi and priced accordingly.williamgriffin said:
If you're happy then what's the point of this thread?hogspudding said:
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.Aylesbury_Duck said:
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.hogspudding said:
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.Aylesbury_Duck said:
That's a no, then...hogspudding said:
Your point is irrelevant, the retailer has a responsibility to state a material fact which would effect the decision of a consumer to purchase.Aylesbury_Duck said:
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.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
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.
We were advised the car had had two private owners, we were also shown the digital service history.
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?
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....
The only thing I see happening is your blood pressure rising.0 -
Anyway, seeing as you have the answer you wanted, is it now convenient for me to ask:
How much do you charge from Tonbridge to Gatwick next Thursday? South terminal, please.9 -
He'll be along to quote you when he gets back from the 2230 pick up at Manchester.Aylesbury_Duck said:Anyway, seeing as you have the answer you wanted, is it now convenient for me to ask:
How much do you charge from Tonbridge to Gatwick next Thursday? South terminal, please.5
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards