Bought a second hand car from a dealer who was dishonest about its history

Grumpy_chap

NCP103 said:

Since receiving and paying for the vehicle however, within the stack of papers I find a service report at 70k carried out with a long list of advisories relating to the poor condition of the springs, wishbones and other chassis components on the car that were not replaced that will cost me alot of money to sort out. That report was deliberately removed at the time of negotiating a price and hence the info not considered prior to settling. 

NCP103 said:

I know that piece of paper wasn't in the original stack.

As mentioned, I asked directly why there was a service gap and they gave me a story. If they didn't know then it wouldn't have been removed.

It seems unlikely that a garage would remove the service report that was unfavourable and then add it back in when they pass the car over.  Could it have been there and you simply did not see this report pre-sale?  Then saw it after sale when you had more time?

It seems more likely that the paperwork, once removed, would be lost forever.  IMO.

Finally, the daft but obvious question.  Have you double-checked that the service report with the unfavourable info is actually for your car?  It may not be hard for a garage to mix paperwork up between vehicles, especially if similar vehicles and year.

RogerBareford

NCP103 said:

bris said:

Advisories are exactly that. not dangerous but recommended for improvement. They would have been picked up quicker if you had someone tpo look over the car before you bought it.

The age and mileage need to be taken into consideration before buying a second hand car.

Since the car at this point isn't actually faulty you are not in a great position unless you were deliberatly lied to.

Not disclosing advisories is not a lie though so you can't focus on that.

These were advisories for poor condition components on the car from a general service not MOT. It's true they're not an immediate danger as it's passed its MOT, however I should have been aware during the sales process to allow me to consider all of the info + make a valid offer should I choose to.

"Advisories" on a service report that are not mentioned on a susequent MOT i would take with a big pinch of salt as it sounds like the garage were fishing for work during the service. Anything like "springs, wishbones and other chassis components" that are not mentioned on the MOT as an advisory i would just ignore.

born_again

NCP103 said:

bris said:

Advisories are exactly that. not dangerous but recommended for improvement. They would have been picked up quicker if you had someone tpo look over the car before you bought it.

The age and mileage need to be taken into consideration before buying a second hand car.

Since the car at this point isn't actually faulty you are not in a great position unless you were deliberatly lied to.

Not disclosing advisories is not a lie though so you can't focus on that.

These were advisories for poor condition components on the car from a general service not MOT. It's true they're not an immediate danger as it's passed its MOT, however I should have been aware during the sales process to allow me to consider all of the info + make a valid offer should I choose to.

So if it passed the MOT with no advisories then it is a garage just looking for work. 

Ath_Wat

To me you bought it knowing there was a 30K mile gap in the service history after 50K, at that point you pretty much expect there to be a lot of things on the way out.  The fact that you subsequently discovered there wasn't a gap doesn't change the situation much.

It's not at all the same as if they told you it had been serviced and you subsequently found there were problems a service should have fixed - they've told you it hasn't been ("at home" doesn't count), and you've found problems a service possibly should have fixed.

Incidentally do you actually know that none of that stuff has been done by the guy "servicing it at home" between 70K and 80K miles?

MarvinDay

Ath_Wat said:

To me you bought it knowing there was a 30K mile gap in the service history after 50K, at that point you pretty much expect there to be a lot of things on the way out.  The fact that you subsequently discovered there wasn't a gap doesn't change the situation much.

That's not really the case though.
Yes, the OP was aware that there was a gap in the recorded service history but they were specifically informed that this gap was because the previous owner had been servicing the car themselves during this period.
This turned out to be incorrect and a service carried out by a business during this period gave a list of work that they said would probably need to be carried out.
Whether or not this list is actually required or was simply the mechanic trying to drum up business is beside the point and the fact remains that the OP was incorrectly told that no such service had been carried out.

Ath_Wat

MarvinDay said:

Ath_Wat said:

To me you bought it knowing there was a 30K mile gap in the service history after 50K, at that point you pretty much expect there to be a lot of things on the way out.  The fact that you subsequently discovered there wasn't a gap doesn't change the situation much.

That's not really the case though.
Yes, the OP was aware that there was a gap in the recorded service history but they were specifically informed that this gap was because the previous owner had been servicing the car themselves during this period.
This turned out to be incorrect and a service carried out by a business during this period gave a list of work that they said would probably need to be carried out.
Whether or not this list is actually required or was simply the mechanic trying to drum up business is beside the point and the fact remains that the OP was incorrectly told that no such service had been carried out.

Oh, come on.  What does "servicing the car themselves" mean?   It could mean checking the oil every 12 months.  Even if they try, what are the chances of them being competent?  They could be harming the car.   Anyone placing any reliance on this is being naive.

MarvinDay

Ath_Wat said:

Oh, come on.  What does "servicing the car themselves" mean?   It could mean checking the oil every 12 months.  Even if they try, what are the chances of them being competent?  They could be harming the car.   Anyone placing any reliance on this is being naive.

I realise that the the dealer stating that the previous owner having serviced the car themselves doesn't really mean much unless exactly what they did was specified and could actually be shown to have been done but to be honest, that's irrelevant regarding the problem that the OP has.

They appear to have been specifically told something that wasn't true and whether or not this was deliberate or simply an oversight by the dealer who sold them the car doesn't matter.
Whatever information is given must be factually correct and this doesn't appear to have happened here.

Ath_Wat

MarvinDay said:

Ath_Wat said:

Oh, come on.  What does "servicing the car themselves" mean?   It could mean checking the oil every 12 months.  Even if they try, what are the chances of them being competent?  They could be harming the car.   Anyone placing any reliance on this is being naive.

I realise that the the dealer stating that the previous owner having serviced the car themselves doesn't really mean much unless exactly what they did was specified and could actually be shown to have been done but to be honest, that's irrelevant regarding the problem that the OP has.

They appear to have been specifically told something that wasn't true and whether or not this was deliberate or simply an oversight by the dealer who sold them the car doesn't matter.
Whatever information is given must be factually correct and this doesn't appear to have happened here.

It may not have been factually correct, but the additional information is actually to the OP's benefit if anything. They said it hadn't been serviced in 30K miles - actually it has been serviced.  So presumably at that service things were done that the OP should have expected hadn't been done.  Nobody said everything on it was in good condition, they said that nobody qualified or competent had looked at it in 3 years.  The buyer's assumption in that case should be that almost anything could be in poor condition.  The fact that some things are should be a given.  At least it's had some attention rather than none.

If your answer is "the information was incorrect so legally you can return the car" then fine, but surely the question is also "should you return the car", as in, is it to your benefit to do so.  I don't see how you can claim a partial refund for items in poor condition that nobody suggested were in good condition, so it's a matter of whether the OP actually wants to return the car and get their money back on a legal quibble.  This would presumably only be the case if they have overpaid - eg, paid a price for a serviced rather than an unserviced car.  The facts that have come out should not really be a problem if the OP has paid a proper price in the first place.

Again I would say the OP seems to have accepted that the previous owner was a competent enough mechanic to do his own servicing but doesn't seem to consider the possibility that they may have attended to these issues already.  A salient issue, surely, is that the dealer claimed they had serviced it themselves before selling it. Should they have picked these things up if they were still issues?