Van broken 1 month over 3 month warranty.

powerful_Rogue

After the mention of EV batteries on here, I read an interesting article last night. Part of it stated:

Abdul Chowdhury, head of vehicle policy at the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV), explained that because the battery forms a large part of a used EV’s value and performance, providing information on its health would support consumers in making informed comparisons between vehicles and help alleviate concerns over battery degradation.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-fleet-news/electric-fleet-news/2023/05/02/government-considers-new-electric-vehicle-battery-degradation-laws

Surly this new law would not be needed as some believe the dealer should be explaining the ins and outs of the batteries prior to purchase anyway?

born_again

As part of a EV service, Kia provide the state of the battery. I would guess that other manufactures can/will do the same.

The likes of leaf, actually have bars in the dash that give a rough guide to battery degradation.

Manxman_in_exile

powerful_Rogue said:

After the mention of EV batteries on here, I read an interesting article last night. Part of it stated:

Abdul Chowdhury, head of vehicle policy at the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV), explained that because the battery forms a large part of a used EV’s value and performance, providing information on its health would support consumers in making informed comparisons between vehicles and help alleviate concerns over battery degradation.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-fleet-news/electric-fleet-news/2023/05/02/government-considers-new-electric-vehicle-battery-degradation-laws

Surly this new law would not be needed as some believe the dealer should be explaining the ins and outs of the batteries prior to purchase anyway?

I suspect neither he nor the governmant know what the current law is...   

I must say that I read the article as  a new law making it compulsory to have a battery "State of Health" monitor fitted to all EVs, not specifically to inform buyers of how the battery is doing because - of course - they already have to...

Manxman_in_exile

Grumpy_chap said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

So I can better understand what you are saying, is your answer in this situation:

We may be speaking at cross-purposes....

[Edited for space]

... SO, the battery on a Tesla is different from the timing belt on an ICE in that the timing belt is recommended to be changed but the battery is not.

Fair enough - we might well be at cross purposes.

I think my view is that the dealer has a legal obligation to disclose to any prospective buyer any information they have (or ought to have as a dealer) that might reasonably have a bearing on that prospective buyer's decision as to whether or not to buy.

We can agree to differ on whether this cover information about components that are scheduled to be replaced and/or nearing warranty expiry.

===================================================================

Incidentally, do you remember you mentioned in an earlier post seeing a car advertised by a franchised dealer simply as a 17k 4yo car, but which you discovered from your own research had been a taxi?

That rang a bell for me and I've dug this thread up from two years ago - somebody complaining about not having been informed that the car they were buying used to be a taxi, which they were not happy with.

Purchased a car not disclosed it was a London Taxi... — MoneySavingExpert Forum

The correct answers (that the OP should have been informed that it had been a taxi and that not having been told was a "misleading omission") were given in the first and fourth replies by neilmcl*.  Unfortunately the thread deteriorated into an abusive slanging match between the OP and others, although the OP confirmed (or claimed?) on page 13 that he'd successfully got some sort of partial redress under the Consumer Protection Protection from Unfair Trading regs because he hadn't been told.

(The point being that most posters - including I think both of us! - thought that there was no obligation on the seller to tell the OP)


*I seem to recall he was a lawyer?  He was one of many reputable and reliable posters who ended up getting banned after being provoked by some troll.

Alderbank

I have seen warnings on dealerships' websites that they cannot guarantee whether previous owners were private or commercial users.
Would that be enough?
If not, how would they discover the information? Presumably a former owner would have had appropriate insurance if he did part-time private hire work for example so presumably that would be filed in the archives of the CLUE or MID databases but would the dealer have access to this?

If the government had wanted buyers to know for what purpose the vehicle had previously been insured, surely they could have implemented that via the V5C?

Grumpy_chap

Manxman_in_exile said:

Incidentally, do you remember you mentioned in an earlier post seeing a car advertised by a franchised dealer simply as a 17k 4yo car, but which you discovered from your own research had been a taxi?

That rang a bell for me and I've dug this thread up from two years ago - somebody complaining about not having been informed that the car they were buying used to be a taxi, which they were not happy with.

Purchased a car not disclosed it was a London Taxi... — MoneySavingExpert Forum

The correct answers (that the OP should have been informed that it had been a taxi and that not having been told was a "misleading omission") were given in the first and fourth replies by neilmcl*.  

Alderbank said:

I have seen warnings on dealerships' websites that they cannot guarantee whether previous owners were private or commercial users.
Would that be enough?
If not, how would they discover the information? 

I don't think that catch-all disclaimers really carry any weight - not in my mind anyway.  I would consider that information needs to be specific to each vehicle.  Unless a Dealer wants the prospective customer to value all their stock to lowest common denominator.

Then, again, maybe we (collective consumers) do value stock to the lowest common denominator.  How many people look for a car online and use the sort "cheapest first"?  I suspect that is the majority. 
That means the Dealer who puts more effort (expense) into greater due diligence, or the Dealer who renews the cambelt that is due in 7 months, has to sell the car for £750 more than everyone else and the stock sticks because it never makes the list in "cheapest first" online sites.
Similarly, for the Dealer selling the car at rock bottom "cheapest first" price, but then tells a prospective customer that the cambelt is nearing the recommended replacement interval and there is no record of it having been changed.  Does the prospective customer thank the Dealer for bringing the matter to their attention, or immediately turn about and try to use that as a negotiating tool for a lower purchase price?

I don't think Dealers have any better way to know about the provenance of the used car stock then the consumer - certainly not at time of purchase.
Consider the car that I dismissed as potential previous taxi use:

• I saw the car online, it looked lovely
• 4 yo Jaguar XE, 17k miles
• For sale at a large Jaguar Dealership, covered by the Jaguar approved used scheme.
• I'm thinking this is the best provenance possible.
• Phoned up to make an appointment to view the car, was advised it was a "one private lady owner" (*)
• Then did an online search for the number plate, which revealed the car had been MOT'd every six months from new.  A clue for taxi use - something I only learned from this site.
• I put a thread on this site as the MOT history seemed to support the low mileage, yet that did not align with the possible use as taxi.  Apparently there is such a thing as a mileage blocker...
• Asked the Dealer to explain the MOT history and he had no information in that regard but, with regard to taxi use, suggested that was not consistent with the low mileage, nor the terms of the PCP under which the car had been supplied originally, nor the statements signed by the previous owner when returning the car at the end of the PCP.
• Anyway, by this time, there was enough doubt in my mind to walk away.

Now, here's the thing - as a consumer buying the car, we want the Dealer to know everything about the car, but the Dealer has to go on what was advised to them by others to a larger part.
If you sell a car to trade, there is a form to sign (or online tick box) to declare no damage, no mechanical faults, no accident damage, etc.  How much weight can the Dealer put on those statements?
For accident damage, it is only if the car was recorded insurance claim (CAT A, B, S, N) that the statement can be verified.  I don't believe it is possible, even for the trade, to check insurance database for any prior claims, which would be a record of lesser damage below write off.
The Dealer then sells the car and, somehow, the consumer wants to hold the Dealer to some halo-wearing expert status.

Conversely, there are occasionally threads where people say they sold the car to a Dealer and now a fortnight later the Dealer has come back saying there was some undeclared fault with the engine and I should have / would have known, and the Dealer wants to reduce the value paid for the car.  The stock advice is that he Dealer is meant to be expert and able to identify faults so the poster with the thread is totally in the clear.  When I have sold cars to the Trade, the Dealer asks about the car, takes it for a five-minute spin round the block, lifts the bonnet for a moment and then offers a value.  It is very quick.  The Dealer is really wholly dependent upon what I have said in the statements unless there was something so obviously glaringly wrong that the Dealer can see it immediately - it would probably have to be as dramatic as steam billowing from the engine when they pop the bonnet for it to actually be noticed.

As Consumers we seem to want to be buying a car for the lowest possible price and for the car to have the highest possible provenance.  Something has to yield.
I'm glad I'm not a Car Dealer

(*) The "one private lady owner" statement is an interesting one.  It is meant to inspire confidence of how well the car has been looked after.  There are all sorts of reasons why a ex-hire car may be just as good / bad as a privately owned car - these stereotypes are really out-dated.

Alderbank

Grumpy_chap said:

...Then did an online search for the number plate, which revealed the car had been MOT'd every six months from new.  A clue for taxi use - something I only learned from this site...

That's interesting but you should treat it with caution -

Here in Scotland each county sets its own rules for private hire but the Scottish government guidance says,

5.5. There is considerable variation between local licensing authorities on vehicle testing, including the related question of age limits. The following can be seen as best practice:

Frequency of tests. The legal requirement for taxis requires that they should be subject to an MOT test or its equivalent one year after first registration and annually thereafter. For private hire cars annual MOT testing should commence after the vehicle is three years old.

...so the same as for any private car.

I believe the requirement in Greater London is for 6 monthly MOT tests. Does that apply throughout England?

Carlisle1967

If you want to buy at a cheaper price why not just buy private then?

What is it that a dealer provides for the extra they charge over private sales?

born_again

@Grumpy_chap
Your example is a good one.

Private lady buys car on PCP. Gets or already has private hire plate plate & runs it as a Limo (which is private hire) so 6 month MOT, but never does that many trips. Just enough to cover costs.

Like you say how would a dealer know. Well I would have thought a MOT check was a bit of a giveaway. So you can only assume, either they never checked, or they knew & were lying...

Grumpy_chap

born_again said:

@Grumpy_chap
Your example is a good one.

Private lady buys car on PCP. Gets or already has private hire plate plate & runs it as a Limo (which is private hire) so 6 month MOT, but never does that many trips. Just enough to cover costs.

Like you say how would a dealer know. Well I would have thought a MOT check was a bit of a giveaway. So you can only assume, either they never checked, or they knew & were lying...

Alderbank said:

I believe the requirement in Greater London is for 6 monthly MOT tests. Does that apply throughout England?

As far as I can tell, a PHV requires an inspection and must have MOT (or new vehicle PDI) within the 14-days before that inspection and then MOT every 6 months.  Here in London - the XE had only been registered to the previous owner also in London.

That's a good comment / thought by @born_again - the car in question had been on private plate and any PHV licence would be associated to that and not the plate the car was being sold against.  

I really don't know how much due-diligence we can expect a car Dealer to do before buying a car into stock.  We might expect that they do far more than reality.  Remember, the big car Dealers are going to auction and buying cars by the hundred or by the thousand.  There is no sentiment in it for them, cars are just revenue generators.