Elderly man coerced into buying a lower spec vehicle by main dealer

claxtome

This explains the circumstances of what happened to my father in law when he took his Kia car for its first MOT and service in early June; where he was coerced into getting another car which was a lower spec than expected; and then having to sign a new agreement to get his current car back leaving him over £9000 out of pocket:

"In early June I took my vehicle in to KIA for its first MOT and service as arranged. Whilst this was being actioned, I thought, I was approached by a member of KIA staff asking whether I was interested in updating my vehicle.

Before being approached, I had not considered a change but said I may be interested if the vehicle was of a similar spec to my current vehicle.

The staff member checked my car fully then referred to a tablet showing cars for sale.  She identified one in particular (a 70 plate with 3000 miles) and she would send it down to me.  I was assured that the car was similar in spec to my current one so I completed finance details in order to ensure it would be sold to me if satisfactory.

When the car appeared and I test drove it, the vehicle was in no way acceptable as I detailed many of the features that were lacking in this car compared to mine. Also the mileage was only 2000 so was obviously not the vehicle first discussed.

I expressed my displeasure and said I would not be buying and would take back my car.  However, this was prevented as I had effectively purchased the 70 plate car, and the only way of taking my car back would be to complete another agreement but this not only would take in to account any loss on my old vehicle but also the loss on taking the new one off the forecourt.

As a result, the new agreement now requires £393 per month for 48 months totalling £18864 (ignoring negative equity) whereas my old agreement had only 2 years to go at £408 totalling £9792 approximately.

In other words I am due to pay over £9000 extra for simply keeping my own vehicle – this surely cannot be correct?"

Any suggestions to help my father-in-law are appreciated please.

Surely there should have been a cooling off period?

GeordieGeorge

It sounds like he’s at the stage in life where he needs someone to help him out. The salesman did what it was his job to do, sell a car, and it sounds as though your father-in law chose to buy one. You don’t mention any threats being made, or actual coercion; it sounds as though he bought the car willingly, but then changed his mind.

Anyway, notwithstanding that, you’ll need to fill in some more details. What was wrong with the new car, what was the difference in price, and how are you calculating the amounts that you mention above?

oh_really

Is your FIL lacking capacity?

claxtome

oh_really said:

Is your FIL lacking capacity?

No he is not. He is nearly 75 though.

claxtome

GeordieGeorge said:

It sounds like he’s at the stage in life where he needs someone to help him out. The salesman did what it was his job to do, sell a car, and it sounds as though your father-in law chose to buy one. You don’t mention any threats being made, or actual coercion; it sounds as though he bought the car willingly, but then changed his mind.

Anyway, notwithstanding that, you’ll need to fill in some more details. What was wrong with the new car, what was the difference in price, and how are you calculating the amounts that you mention above?

I have rewritten the description to hopefully make it clearer.
Will try to find out price he was quoted of the new car/depreciation for taking it off the forecourt and how much he paid to get his current car back.

The figures quoted show what he was paying and how much he is paying now.

He said he was only interested in the newer car if it was of a similar spec as his and was assured it was. As it turned out the new car had a lot less features.

Surely he should have had a cooling off period?

user1977

I'm confused about why he "test drove" it after he had apparently already bought it? The most obvious argument for him is that he hadn't actually agreed to buy it at that stage?

GeordieGeorge

claxtome said:

GeordieGeorge said:

It sounds like he’s at the stage in life where he needs someone to help him out. The salesman did what it was his job to do, sell a car, and it sounds as though your father-in law chose to buy one. You don’t mention any threats being made, or actual coercion; it sounds as though he bought the car willingly, but then changed his mind.

Anyway, notwithstanding that, you’ll need to fill in some more details. What was wrong with the new car, what was the difference in price, and how are you calculating the amounts that you mention above?

I have rewritten the description to hopefully make it clearer.
Will try to find out price he was quoted of the new car/depreciation for taking it off the forecourt and how much he paid to get his current car back.

The figures quoted show what he was paying and how much he is paying now.

He said he was only interested in the newer car if it was of a similar spec as his and was assured it was. As it turned out the new car had a lot less features.

Surely he should have had a cooling off period?

Not once he’s asked for the car to be customised by fitting a tow bar, which generally requires cutting a hole in the rear bumper and likely replacing the rear crash structure.

Grumpy_chap

claxtome said:

She identified one in particular (a 70 plate with 3000 miles) and she would send it down to me.  I was assured that the car was similar in spec to my current one so I completed finance details in order to ensure it would be sold to me if satisfactory.

When the car appeared and I test drove it, the vehicle was in no way acceptable as I detailed many of the features that were lacking in this car compared to mine. Also the mileage was only 2000 so was obviously not the vehicle first discussed.

This seems a bit odd.  

Individual owns a Kia, which is in for service and the garage took the opportunity to solicit a trade in and new car sale.  Reasonable enough.

The individual knows the current car has equipment A B C D E F and only wants to change if the new car also has A B C D E F, but actually asked for "similar".

For a car only 6 months old, the Dealer could provide a full spec sheet, most likely a full brochure if asked  That would allow the individual to fully compare the equipment against the current car.  Why didn't this process happen?

Instead, the individual relied on the sales person simply confirming it was "similar".  How is the sales person to know which of A B C D E F is a "must" have and which could be omitted?  Particularly if some alternative is fitted, so no sunroof because there is aircon, or no parking sensors because there is rear view camera?



As to how the £9k has come about:

claxtome said:

I expressed my displeasure and said I would not be buying and would take back my car.  However, this was prevented as I had effectively purchased the 70 plate car, and the only way of taking my car back would be to complete another agreement but this not only would take in to account any loss on my old vehicle but also the loss on taking the new one off the forecourt.

That would have required the paperwork for the old car to have all been completed to sell the old car and buy the new car and do all the V5 stuff etc.  Did FiL have the paperwork all with him given he'd only gone in for a service?

How did the variance equate to £9k?

Norman_Castle

How long between being approached and been told he had bought a new car? If its at the same visit presumably within an hour or so its ridiculous the accidental purchase cannot be reversed.

AdrianC

There is so much which is left to inference in the description of what happened.

What did he actually sign, and what is the timeline?
You don't sign finance agreements "in case" the car is acceptable.
DSR does not apply because he was on the retailer's premises.
He has 14 days to cancel the finance, but that does not unwind the purchase.

AdrianC

claxtome said:

oh_really said:

Is your FIL lacking capacity?

No he is not. He is nearly 75 though.

That alone does not make the slightest difference at all.

Unless you have PoA over his affairs, the dealer cannot - must not - deal with you about this.

It would be illegal for them to, no matter how well-meaning your intervention is - unless your FiL gives them explicit written permission to.