Van Manufactured with Wrong Engine; Insurance Void?

DullGreyGuy

bengalknights said:

• When insured, I was told the van was a Peugeot Partner L1 625 BlueHDI 75. This seemed consistent with it having a 5 speed, as opposed to 6 speed gearbox.

This is where the issue lies, when they told you it was a BlueHDI75 you should have stated it is a HDI100 regardless of what they think it was or what you think it is. It is what the manufacturer have stated on any documents that is the model.

I once had this issue back when the Seat Leon 1.5 models was not on the list, they wanted to put it through as 1.4SE i corrected them and made them manually change it to 1.5 xcellence.

The current insurance company should requote based on the actual model it is, any new insurers should also do as such.

The insurers pull the date from the DVLA, hence the OP should be checking whats on the V5C. 

If the DVLA holds the wrong information it needs to be corrected there however it appears that the vehicle is actually neither model really unless the HDI100 had the option to downgrade the gearbox or the HDI75 had the option to upgrade the motor (and not the gearbox)

It could well be the dealer has missold it as a HDI100 when its a HDI75 as registered with the DVLA

The days of people choosing from drop down lists is a distant memory for all but the smallest broker.

CoastingHatbox

I've phoned a handful of insurers and a couple have being willing to insure as modified vehicle, a couple have refused to quote.

Some good news.

Current insurer has advised the policy I have is valid until it expires.

Some more good news.

I phone Citizens Advice Bureau and after a good while on hold, explained the situation. They advised:

1) Under section 6(1) of the The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008), omitting to inform me at the time of purchase that the vehicle was a non-standard derivative could be an offense. (Given they listed it as a BlueHDI 100 when a VRM or VIN search returns BlueHDI 75, something was definitely up there).

2) Under section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act (2015) the goods can be considered to be of unsatisfactory quality.

3) Under section 75 of Consumer Credit Act (1974) I can make a claim against the creditor* within 6 years of the date or original purchase (statute of limitations).

4) Consequential loss is justified and should be mitigated.

5) I still have the right to reject the vehicle.

I've phoned the creditor and they have advised that they no longer have a financial interest in the vehicle, because the agreement is settled, and as such they are not liable.

Codswallop.

As an aside, I did query the exact derivative of van I bought with the original supplier within a few days of buying it but did not get a response.

Drafting up a letter to send to the creditor via recorded delivery.

chrisw

I agree with a previous poster, take it back to the Peugeot dealer first so you know exactly what you're dealing with and what the issues are.

Thay have already offered to look at it, 60 miles isn't really a significant distance and it might save you some embarrassment if it turns out to be in order. Or it will give you maximum ammunition to raise a case..

DE_612183

was the van new or used when you bought it?
how old is it now?

CoastingHatbox

The van was used when I bought it at just over 2 years old.
It's now 5 years old.

The original supplying Peugeot dealer (not the company I bought the vehicle from) are not going to be able to confirm anything I can't already confirm with my own eyes and knowledge. They had no understanding of how the VIN numbers and engine numbers are encoded. I've obtained that information from a number of sources and corroborated it a few different ways. Originally, I couldn't believe it myself!

I've plenty of pictorial evidence to supply with my letter to the creditor which highlights the situation:

* Engine number / model on the side of the engine block (indicates BlueHDI 100)

* VIN Number and Vehicle Gross Weight from the near side B pillar (indicates BlueHDI 75 and smaller payload)

Peugeot (PSA at the time) never officially sold a version of this van with the 100HP engine and a payload of 650Kg (it's actually less when I subtract max permissible mass from mass in service).

diystarter7

Hi OP

So sorry to read about your woes. Just shows  that being 101%, contentious/etc  not only does it not reward you but to add insult to injury they slap you in the face with a dead fish.

I'ma bit like you and it's time I stopped but I can see where you are coming from and safeguarding your asset/self etc and credit to you for that as no one can really beat honesty.

Thanks

Car_54

CoastingHatbox said:

II phone Citizens Advice Bureau and after a good while on hold, explained the situation. They advised:

2) Under section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act (2015) the goods can be considered to be of unsatisfactory quality.

3) Under section 75 of Consumer Credit Act (1974) I can make a claim against the creditor* within 6 years of the date or original purchase (statute of limitations).

4) Consequential loss is justified and should be mitigated.

5) I still have the right to reject the vehicle.

Far be it from me to question CAB, and others on here are better qualified to advise, but aren't your rights - after three years - somewhat diminished?

What consequential losses (or indeed any losses) have you suffered? If I've understood correctly, the van has been perfectly satisfactory apart from this issue. 

DullGreyGuy

CoastingHatbox said:

The van was used when I bought it at just over 2 years old.
It's now 5 years old.

The original supplying Peugeot dealer (not the company I bought the vehicle from) are not going to be able to confirm anything I can't already confirm with my own eyes and knowledge. They had no understanding of how the VIN numbers and engine numbers are encoded. I've obtained that information from a number of sources and corroborated it a few different ways. Originally, I couldn't believe it myself!

I've plenty of pictorial evidence to supply with my letter to the creditor which highlights the situation:

* Engine number / model on the side of the engine block (indicates BlueHDI 100)

* VIN Number and Vehicle Gross Weight from the near side B pillar (indicates BlueHDI 75 and smaller payload)

Peugeot (PSA at the time) never officially sold a version of this van with the 100HP engine and a payload of 650Kg (it's actually less when I subtract max permissible mass from mass in service).

If Peugeot are the same as other car manufacturers, and no reason to suspect they arent, then any Peugeot garage will be able to see exactly what was ordered when the vehicle was new and therefore potentially explain the mismatch between engine and the rest of the car or at least say if its the engine they put in

Car_54 said:

CoastingHatbox said:

II phone Citizens Advice Bureau and after a good while on hold, explained the situation. They advised:

2) Under section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act (2015) the goods can be considered to be of unsatisfactory quality.

3) Under section 75 of Consumer Credit Act (1974) I can make a claim against the creditor* within 6 years of the date or original purchase (statute of limitations).

4) Consequential loss is justified and should be mitigated.

5) I still have the right to reject the vehicle.

Far be it from me to question CAB, and others on here are better qualified to advise, but aren't your rights - after three years - somewhat diminished?

What consequential losses (or indeed any losses) have you suffered? If I've understood correctly, the van has been perfectly satisfactory apart from this issue. 

Rights arent diminished but amount of compensation for saying the goods dont conform to contract is... for motor vehicles the retailer and therefore the creditor can diminish the compensation for the use received from the goods prior to bringing up the issue.

To the OP - you mention a lot of consumer law... is this a personal vehicle or a commercial vehicle? Obviously most vans are the later (though a sole trader can benefit from some consumer protection)

Grumpy_chap

CoastingHatbox said:

Citizens Advice Bureau advised:

1) Under section 6(1) of the The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008), omitting to inform me at the time of purchase that the vehicle was a non-standard derivative could be an offense. (Given they listed it as a BlueHDI 100 when a VRM or VIN search returns BlueHDI 75, something was definitely up there).

2) Under section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act (2015) the goods can be considered to be of unsatisfactory quality.

3) Under section 75 of Consumer Credit Act (1974) I can make a claim against the creditor* within 6 years of the date or original purchase (statute of limitations).

4) Consequential loss is justified and should be mitigated.

5) I still have the right to reject the vehicle.

CAB advised...
The quoted some standard texts which may, or may not, apply to the specific case.

Is this van a business asset?

The non-standard derivative is not a catch-all. 
Before going down this path, it really is worth contacting Peugeot to understand exactly what the vehicle is. 
It may be that it is an "A" and a simple admin error meant it was registered as a "B".  
I would imagine that actually building a non-standard derivative of vehicle is extremely rare.
It may then be a more technicality, such as car originally intended for geography "C" but then somehow ended up in UK - was the car originally registered in UK?
Certainly, relying on the advert being different from the V5 is really quite weak as most adverts contain a disclaimer and a second-hand dealer could quite easily make this type of mistake.

I am not sure that the van would really be "unsatisfactory" quality as it appears to have done everything you have asked of it for three years.

What consequential loss have you suffered?
It seems to me as though the loss is potentially an extra £200 insurance for the next years that you keep the van:

CoastingHatbox said:

The premium is double but just south of £400 so it's not that big of a deal.

Right to reject the vehicle is rather moot.  You would not get a full refund but a deduction for the three years' use so far.  Plus, you would be without the van and need to acquire another.
If you are minded to get rid of the vehicle, how would any funds returned under "rejection" compare with what you could realise for the van through any other sales process?
In fact, this is how you could totally mitigate any losses - sell the van, avoid the £200 yearly insurance uplift, buy another van.  Losses = zero.

CoastingHatbox

The van is not a business asset. It was bought and is used as a private vehicle.

I have no intention of rejecting the van, or at least not at this stage. My intention was most likely to keep the van for at least 5 more years, if not 10. I cover less than 3,000 miles a year so it should last me a good while. We've had a notion for a while of trading it in for a larger van so that we can tow a caravan, but the reality is that with the cost-of-living increases we keep seeing at the moment, there is too much risk of us getting cold feet.

As mentioned in the OP, I did speak to the original supplying dealer. They told me it was a BlueHDI 75 and the could not explain the discrepency. The dealer supplied warranty and servicing booklet also recorded the van as having the higher engine output. The staff at the dealer could not explain that. The dealer is very large retailer of PSA (now Stellantis) commercial vehicles - I would have thought that if this kind of issue was at all common, they might have let on.

As I have all the original paperwork for the vehicle, including the original Peugeot issued waybill ('Bordereau de transport') showing the inconsistent VIN / engine number.

If I keep the van, it will cost an additional £200 each year (more I imagine if my mileage should increase or my insurance risk profile increases for any other reason). If my situation were to change and I sold the van privately without disclosing the situation to any potential buyer, I would be acting dishonestly and therefore the value of the van is diminished.

The above represents a consequential loss which is covered under section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act (2014) which covers goods not being of satisfactory quality.

If I sell the van back into the trade (via part-ex) I would not necessarily have to disclose it, but I would be taking a hit on the trade-in value versus the private sale value - which I think is exacerbated by the low mileage and overall good/clean condition of the van.

I used to work extensively with vehicle data - it is indeed very unusual to see an off-book car produced in this day and age. When it dawned on me that this could be a possibility, I couldn't quite believe it. I've done a great deal of research into this now and I am 100% certain there is a discrepancy here.

It's not unreasonable to want to do things legitimately (N.B. have the insurance legal and above board) and not be out of pocket with extra expenditure.