I purchased a car now they want me to pay more

outtatune

I'd be wondering at this point if the car I now have isn't quite what it was made out to be.

mobileron

powerful_Rogue said:

mobileron said:

tell them to return your car and all monies paid and cleared into your bank,this will add another owner on v5 and be worth less.
Also let us all know where in the country you live,someone will recommend  a good dealer,you dont need to pay for warranty they need to give it free. Insurance warranties are a joke.

Just to pick you up on this, what do you actually mean? If you are referring to the Consumer Rights Act, it's certainly not a warranty and does have caveats.

I believe the OP also paid for a 3 month warranty as an extra.so he can reclaim the costs.

unholyangel

Carrot007 said:

For a genuine error he can do something.

But that something (unless you agree to what he wants). if reverse the deal. If he no longer has you car then it gets complictaed and you either agree to something fair (which will require looking at all the details and what he claims was a mistake) or go to court.

There are several classes of mistake and they don't all have the same outcome on the contract. But whether a mistake is genuine or not doesn't come into it. If the mistake wasn't genuine then its not a mistake and is potentially fraud as well as an unfair trading practice (which can also be a criminal offence). You can make a genuine mistake and still be bound by it. 

There's generally 3 types of mistake. Common, mutual and unilateral. 

As lunatic says, it's only really unilateral which may (emphasis on the may) be applicable.

But imo, it is applicable. I could tell it was a mistake from the very first screenshot. 

He deducted the finance he would pay from price he was supposed to receive. Effectively saying he'd pay OP 700 to take the new car in exchange for the old one. 

What he should have done was 2800 + 1750 - 1500 (or whatever value he was giving for trade in). Less paid 1050 would leave a balance of 2000, not 1750. 

So either he's being more than fair (effectively offering to pay £250 difference in finance versus value of old car) or he's just really bad with maths and probably won't last long in business. 

unholyangel

DB1904 said:

m0bov said:

The 3 months warranty is a scam as you have at least 6 months on CRA. I'd just ignore it and see if he starts a SCC again. He is a trader and is expected to act professionally and your not expect to pay for his mistakes.

A six month warranty? Post a link to help the OP.

While the 3 month warranty may or may not be misleading/as much use as a chocolate fireguard....the CRA does offer a warranty. But technically it's not 6 months. 

A manufacturers or retailers warranty are not the definition of the word warranty. 

We discussed it recently (in the last week), I think on the ikea thread. 

Try searching for conditions, warranties and innominate terms. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ergates said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Am I reading this right, the deal was part exchange old car (free of finance) and £1050 in cash for the new car but the salesman paid off the finance rather than getting the customer to do it?

Yes, the salesman paid* £1750 of finance on a part ex worth £1500.

* Or claims to have paid - OP should check this has actually happened.

Jenni_D said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Am I reading this right, the deal was part exchange old car (free of finance) and £1050 in cash for the new car but the salesman paid off the finance rather than getting the customer to do it?

If you read the messages on the previous page then the sales guy agreed that the dealership would pay off the outstanding finance - and that was actually the main error; it should have been free of finance.  

Thanks both, thought so but it seems such a mistake I wasn't sure if I was reading it correctly! 

I think benefiting twice from the trade in, once from the finance being paid off and again from the part exchange reduction, should be an "obvious" mistake, not sure how the salesman managed to miss this and if he keeps his job I doubt he'll be doing it again with a another customer but it does seem the dealership are due the £1750 really. 

visidigi

Ergates said:

visidigi said:

Jenni_D said:

I think the eBay reference was regarding leaving positive feedback - not that the vehicle was only available on eBay.

That what I meant. If you only sell cars on ebay but you have a dealer principle, and a boss. but you cant send them a positive review, only on ebay....calling you pal...naaaaw! well fishy!

Except the OP has the car and has (currently) paid buttons for it.   What's the con here?  Sell people cars for significantly below market value and then try to guilt/trick them into paying more?   Doesn't sound like a particularly good plan to me.

Again, we need to know the value of the doblo to know how much the buttons are short of the real value. Until the Op comes back with that we don't know just how under they paid. £1750 is claimed, but if the price was over inflated the gap might be much more reasonable...

sheramber

 The OP's post of 3 March shows the dealer's figures for the price of the car, the finance and the  balance payable.

visidigi

sheramber said:

 The OP's post of 3 March shows the dealer's figures for the price of the car, the finance and the  balance payable.

Yes, but what was the doblo worth. not what the dealer had it up for.

Ergates

visidigi said:

sheramber said:

 The OP's post of 3 March shows the dealer's figures for the price of the car, the finance and the  balance payable.

Yes, but what was the doblo worth. not what the dealer had it up for.

I'm working on the assumption that the OP had done at least *some* checks on the value of the car they were buying.  

It's possible the dealer had significantly over estimated the price of the "new" car, or that they significantly under stated the value of the trade-in, or that they only pretended to pay off the finance on the trade-in.   However, given these would all be trivially easy to cross check they wouldn't make for a particularly robust scam.

There *is* the difference between the value of the trade-in on WBAC and the value if the dealership resold it themselves - but that is extremely unlikely to be £2000 on a car with a trade in value of £1500.

ThumbRemote

Ergates said:

ThumbRemote said:

Him getting the sack isn't your problem. You both agreed a deal for the car. You even double checked the details.

You have the car you wanted, at the price you agreed to. I'd probably ignore them from now on, they aren't going to try taking it to court as they've already paid the finance on your old car off, so they can't undo the contract now. 

It's nearly 2 grand, that's a big enough incentive for them to take it to court - we're not talking pocket change.

I agree it's not pocket change, but the problem is the trader can no longer unwind the contract and put the consumer back in the position they were beforehand. They've paid off the finance and transferred ownership of the original car. 

So what is the trader going to do? Take it to court, but then be unable to unwind the contract anyway? That would be a rather pointless victory.

So the trader has two options: try to get the consumer to agree to pay the extra by asking them, or write it off. They've asked; the consumer has said no. What other option do they have?