Van broken 1 month over 3 month warranty.

born_again

If it was, For sale at a large Jaguar Dealership, covered by the Jaguar approved used scheme. Then it will have been something P/X or a roll over PCP most likely by them.

Grumpy_chap

born_again said:

If it was, For sale at a large Jaguar Dealership, covered by the Jaguar approved used scheme. Then it will have been something P/X or a roll over PCP most likely by them.

Yes, indeed it was at a Jaguar Dealer and I would suggest very likely the PCP swap that put it there.

It is against that background - this is the highest provenance you can really get - but it shows nothing can be taken for granted with used cars. 
Once you are buying an older / cheaper vehicle, the potential for some undesirable background grows ever more to the point of certainty.
This leaves a real dilemma for the Dealer with, say, 8yo 60k miles cars.  Everyone knows that most of these cars will have "something", but it is not necessarily the case that anyone actually knows or can easily find what that "something" is.  Arguably "something" is taken into account in the pricing for every such car.

powerful_Rogue

born_again said:

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.

It's only a rough guide though. You could buy it with 12 bars, drive down the road and it drop to 11 bars. The only real way to tell is with a dongle and LeafSpy. That will also tell you the condition of the cells.

powerful_Rogue

Manxman_in_exile said:

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...

That's exactly why its being considered.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

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.

Your musings on the second hand car market are all very fair but there’s this weird idea on this forum from time to time that because life gets in the way a business shouldn’t have to abide by the law.

There isn’t national service in being a car dealer, these businesses took a choice to be in that industry and with that choice comes the responsibility of abiding by the law.

What is lacking is rigorous enforcement, I’m fairly liberal when all is fair but when someone is seeking an advantage, or in this case a profit, I believe the rules should be followed.

They generally aren’t enforced so life, the real world, or whatever you want to call it, fills in the gaps but that doesn’t mean the courts aren’t obligated to follow the legislation.

A number threads on courier insurance have cropped up on the board over the years with comments like it would be unfair for them to be liable for loss without the consumer paying extra for insurance, yet the recent thread on here shows two examples of where the court process disagrees and stuck to the legislation despite the business model of the couriers.

If I posted to say I’d been caught breaking the rules because life gets in the way I wouldn’t expect my rule breaking to simply be forgiven.

To address the specific point you raised, the trader can use information given to them by someone else as a defence but that must also come with professional diligence.

The Business Companion guidance suggests for example not solely relying on an MOT history but to inspect the car. 

Obviously there is a lot of grey area and in the rare cases that end up in small claims it will be decided on the balance of probability.

The important thing to remember is that broadness of the unfair trading regs is intended to give wider scope for consumer protection, rather than give businesses a get out clause.