Missold a car

Manxman_in_exile

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80027257#Comment_80027257

Assuming the OP asked the question if the car had been in an accident and the dealer said it hadn't, why would it be relevant that a dealer can only do so much to check if a car was previously in an accident? If asked the question and they aren't 100% sure then the the only honest answers (as you would give yourself!) are either "I can't say" or "Not that I know".

In this case the OP discovered after the sale that the car had been in an accident that required extensive repair. Why couldn't the dealer ascertain that before selling it?

There's also no obligation on a consumer to check or verify that the seller isn't telling them the truth, so they really shouldn't need to have to rely on their own pre-purchase checks. (I'm not saying it would be prudent not to practically, I'm saying the law doesn't require it)

Grumpy_chap

If asked the question and they aren't 100% sure then the the only honest answers (as you would give yourself!) are either "I can't say" or "Not that I know".

Which is why I said it depends on the detail of exactly what was asked and what was said.

Also, if the previous owner signed a declaration "no accident" does that allow anyone to rely on the statement to any extent?

If this damage was so obvious and extensive, why didn't the OP's RAC inspection note it, rather than an MOT check?

Is it fair to hold the Dealer to a higher standard than the RAC inspector

tightauldgit

Since I've literally nothing better to do tonight I did a bit of googling and as far as I can see there's two elements at play

1. According to the CRA 2015 - if the item is not as described then they should have rights to a repair, replacement or refund. I don't see anything to suggest "but I thought it was as described" is any kind of get out.
2. There's also the (potentially criminal) aspect of misleading selling which would relate to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and again it seems that it's a matter of fact as to whether a statement is true or false. But there is a defence of having done your due diligence (which would include relying on information provided by others) so you probably could escape any action under those rules if you could show for example that the RAC inspection did not show any signs of accident damage.

As agreed though it does come down to the specifics of what the description of the car said and what the OP was told by the dealer - or more to the point what the OP can show they were told by the dealer. If they were genuinely told 'this car has never been in an accident' and they can show that then they should have the grounds to claim (regardless of whether the dealer knew or not)

tightauldgit

"Is it fair to hold the dealer to a higher standard than the RAC"

The difference is the RAC isn't selling anything to a consumer in this instance so it very much would be a different standard. Of course, the dealer might have a claim against the RAC for their losses as a result of the incorrect report.

Manxman_in_exile

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80027432#Comment_80027432

[God it's difficult getting these quotes right on this update!!!!!!!!!!! ]

To try to answer your points one by one without useful bits of quotes:

Yes - it depends on what the OP asked and what the dealer replied - as I stated in my first post on this thread

No - If the previous owner had signed a declaration saying "no accident" there is nothing in the legislation that would allow the dealer to rely on it when selling the car. If asked the dealer could not say it had not been in an accident just because that's what the previous owner told him

If the dealer had stated it had not been in an accident but it had been, it's irrelevant whether any pre-purchase inspection commissioned by the purchaser proved or disproved it. The only way it would make a difference would be if in answer to the question the dealer had said "I don't know. It's up to you to find out". In which case a sensible purchaser would run a mile.

(The only other way I could see that it might make a difference would be if the purchaser made it clear to the seller that they weren't going to rely on anything the seller told them, and would rely on their own RAC inspection. In which case the OP would now be complaining to the RAC. But I don't think that is what has happened here.)

Yes - it is fair to hold the dealer to a higher standard than the RAC inspector in respect of the purchase of the car because it's the dealer who sold the car, and that's what the law says in respect of the car sale.

Of course the OP might have a claim against the RAC for not carrying out the inspection with reasonable care and skill…

If the law might seem biased in favour of the consumer as opposed to the dealer, that's because it is. I don't think Parliament intended it to be fair and/or even-handed.

Manxman_in_exile

@tightauldgit - something must be wrong… I'm agreeing with everything you post today!

charlottemcalpine00

hi all, thanks for all your comments.
I did ask if it had been in an accident and said I was asking as I have young children so safety is paramount, and he said no. He said all cars were checked by the RAC before being sold but I've since found out this is a lie as they are only an RAC warranty dealer, not an RAC approved dealer (I sadly didn't know the difference)

I'm not a mechanic or car minded and so I didn't see anything untoward under the bonnet but now it's been pointed out it's fairl obvious so anyone with any car knowledge would likely pick it up.

Our mechanic has confirmed it is a cut and shut which is illegal to sell without disclosing the fact, as it is misrepresenting to pretend it is on fact 1 car.

It was not declared to insurance so the HPI came back clear but is a clearly a botch back street job using a mixture of welding, putty and wood screws! Is it not due diligence if selling a vehicle and saying it is RAC checked to make sure someone has a look at it and our mechanic has said there is no way someone with any knowledge wouldn't identify it, therefore, either they didn't look and lied about their process and didn't do due diligence or they did and saw it and didn't disclose which is illegal.

Unfortunately the paperwork is very lacking. Massive learning lesson for me with this purchase, there's a lot of very unethical people out there.

Manxman_in_exile

I'm no expert on second-hand car purchases but it sounds to me as if the car was mis-described to you, either orally in answer to questions you asked, and/or in writing in adverts etc.

If you can prove that, you would be entitled to a refund, but there are two issues there:

First, if it's not written down you might find it difficult to prove. That's why it's always helpful to get confirmation of spoken answers in writing. eg a confirmatory email.

However, I'm of the view that if this sort of thing got to court and it was a 50:50 "he said… she said… " situation without anything in writing, I think a court would look favourably on a consumer unless they were obviously lying, being untruthful or otherwise not credible. (But that 's just my personal view - not a legal one).

Second, you've had the use of the car for 12 months(?) so you wouldn't get a full refund. The dealer would be entitled to deduct an amount to reflect the use you've had of the car.

If the dealer won't play ball you would have to sue them, hope you win, and hope you have no difficulties getting them to pay up…

Good luck

km1500

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2005/dec/14/10

Guardian article

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/report-someone-making-or-selling-unsafe-or-illegal-vehicles-or-parts

you should report them

Grumpy_chap

Before considering legal action, the OP would need to have a full assessment of the condition fo the car - not just the MOT garage saying (possibly with exageration) it was in a major collision, whole new front end. Would need to understand the extent of the damage and whether it has actually caused detriment to the car's integral strength.

OK - that may not be necessary under the consumer rights, but it would be a pragmatic steps to avoid wasting time. Whatever the situation with the statement (details of) about no accident, I would assume the court would take a different view between front end collision and had panels replaced versus front end collision death trap.

From a pragmatic point of view, going to court will be a lot of stress and requires expense from the OP upfront. Even if the OP wins, the OP still needs to recover the money from the supplying Dealer and will still need to buy a new car. Any refund after a year would be adjusted to reflect a year's use of the car. It may be worh understanding what the OP could sell the car for to WBAC etc. That may give a similar end outcome with less stress, but not the satisfaction of "winning".