Bought a used car I suspect the previous owner was a driving instructor

Undervalued

estera2022 said:

Hi,

I recently bought a car (few days ago) and I suspect it had been used by a driving instructor previously- it has the little mirrors on the side, but when I asked the dealer, I was told some people use them for the dead corners. Now I doubt that. It had only one previous lady owner, it sounded good for me, despite the mileage a bit high. Waiting to go for a check up& see what the mechanic says. My question is: if my suspicion proves true& indeed the car was used for giving driving lessons, what are my consumer rights? Can I return it? Can I confront the dealer about it& how do I do it. As he was not honest with me about the previous use of the car, how can I approach him? I would be grateful to hear your opinion.

You don't know that for a fact. Your suspicions might be right but nothing you have posted here proves that.

In any case, did you specifically ask that question if it was important to you? Unless you did and got a knowingly false answer, how was he "not honest" with you?

Have you ever been asked your occupation when you have sold or traded in a car?

Ath_Wat

What did you ask the dealer, and what did he reply?  Because "Some people use them for the dead corners" is not dishonest.

Did you directly ask whether the owner was a driving instructor and did they directly answer no, or did you talk about mirrors?

DanDare999

Alderbank said:

Driving school cars are leased. The previous owner would be for example Hitachi Finance.
Plenty of driving instructors own private cars and only do their teaching in the leased one with the big sign on top.
If the 'one previous lady owner' is a self-employed driving instructor it would be pretty easy to find her on Google or Yell.

Some are some aren't, there's no rule either way. 

Jenni_D

Unfair trading legislation bans a trader from any practice that may adversely influence a consumer's buying decision. That's why a trader is generally require to declare relevant details to a consumer even if the consumer doesn't ask.

That's the (summarised) legal position - enforcing it though is a different matter.

Alderbank

Undervalued said:

Have you ever been asked your occupation when you have sold or traded in a car?

I never take finance but many buyers do and I am sure you are asked for your occupation when applying for PCP, etc.

On the other hand I've never thought to ask any personal details about previous owners.

Perhaps I should? If I was told that the previous owner was a 19 year-old tearaway who sold the car because he was banned for street racing I might have a change of mind.

It's not GDPR but ought the dealer share personal information with the buyer anyway?
If the previous owner had been a 'lady of the night' would that make the car more or less appealing?

Ergates

estera2022 said:

Hi,

I recently bought a car (few days ago) and I suspect it had been used by a driving instructor previously- it has the little mirrors on the side, but when I asked the dealer, I was told some people use them for the dead corners. Now I doubt that. It had only one previous lady owner, it sounded good for me, despite the mileage a bit high. Waiting to go for a check up& see what the mechanic says. My question is: if my suspicion proves true& indeed the car was used for giving driving lessons, what are my consumer rights? Can I return it? Can I confront the dealer about it& how do I do it. As he was not honest with me about the previous use of the car, how can I approach him? I would be grateful to hear your opinion.

Blind spot mirrors are in no way an indication that the car had been used by a driving instructor - that's a very odd assumption.  Loads of cars have them.

A second internal mirror (so the passenger can see the drivers eyes) and/or evidence of dual controls having been fitted might suggest that.

Undervalued

Jenni_D said:

Unfair trading legislation bans a trader from any practice that may adversely influence a consumer's buying decision. That's why a trader is generally require to declare relevant details to a consumer even if the consumer doesn't ask.

That's the (summarised) legal position - enforcing it though is a different matter.

That assumes that the trader knows the occupation of the previous owner and even if they do is it relevant?

Plus, from some of the earlier comments in this thread, some people might consider it a plus point rather than a minus.

Jenni_D

Undervalued said:

Jenni_D said:

Unfair trading legislation bans a trader from any practice that may adversely influence a consumer's buying decision. That's why a trader is generally require to declare relevant details to a consumer even if the consumer doesn't ask.

That's the (summarised) legal position - enforcing it though is a different matter.

That assumes that the trader knows the occupation of the previous owner and even if they do is it relevant?

Plus, from some of the earlier comments in this thread, some people might consider it a plus point rather than a minus.

This topic has been addressed before ... the short answer is "It doesn't matter". The trader is deemed to be the "expert" in the transaction so should know relevant info that may adversely affect a consumer's buying decision. It is evident that the car formerly being a driving school car does affect a buying decision - for some it is positive, for others it is negative, but it is clear that it has an impact. And a trader should be able to ascertain such information - if it was enough to cause suspicion for a consumer then it should have been more-obvious to an "expert". Ignorance is not a defence.

DanDare999

Jenni_D said:

Undervalued said:

Jenni_D said:

Unfair trading legislation bans a trader from any practice that may adversely influence a consumer's buying decision. That's why a trader is generally require to declare relevant details to a consumer even if the consumer doesn't ask.

That's the (summarised) legal position - enforcing it though is a different matter.

That assumes that the trader knows the occupation of the previous owner and even if they do is it relevant?

Plus, from some of the earlier comments in this thread, some people might consider it a plus point rather than a minus.

This topic has been addressed before ... the short answer is "It doesn't matter". The trader is deemed to be the "expert" in the transaction so should know relevant info that may adversely affect a consumer's buying decision. It is evident that the car formerly being a driving school car does affect a buying decision - for some it is positive, for others it is negative, but it is clear that it has an impact. And a trader should be able to ascertain such information - if it was enough to cause suspicion for a consumer then it should have been more-obvious to an "expert". Ignorance is not a defence.

Should or must know?

Registered to a private individual with all teaching aids removed I don't see why a court would decide in the buyers favour, if they didn't ask pre sale. 

Jenni_D

Nothing in this area is black and white - there are always shades of grey. And nobody can be sure what a judge may decide in a civil claim.

I have nothing further to add as I'll just be repeating what I've already typed.