Bought second hand car from garage

Grumpy_chap

monaymadlol said:

LightFlare said:

It’s very hard to get accurate/pertinent advice untill the following info is known:

a) cost/age/price of the vehicle
b) exactly what the “fault” is

make and manufacturer may also be useful as there maybe a common fault/solution

There is no 'fault'; its missing features that were advertised 

Can you explain how the information such as price, age, mileage etc is important,  ie every bit of information that would be give me away if they were reading this?

I have already said that I will try for a refund based on CRA.

It is difficult for us to advise if you won't even share what the missing feature is.
You referenced a missing parking feature, which you noted prior to completing the purchase so you have no grounds there.
There is a second "key media feature" but repeated declines to actually say what that feature is.

As for make, age etc, I explained how that is relevant upthread:

Grumpy_chap said:

1. What is the key media feature that is missing?
2. If this feature was critical, why did you not check it worked prior to concluding the purchase?
3. What age, mileage, condition car is it?

I ask question 3, not because your consumer rights vary between and old or new car, but there is an element of "tempering" for age etc. 

If I purchased a 3 month old pre-reg car from a manufacturer's main dealer, I would expect the car to have all the features as per the correct model spec.  If I purchased a 10 year old car from an independent dealer, I might expect / tolerate a greater variance.

The forum can give the most complete advice if we have the most complete information.
Unless the car is a particularly exception / rare model, I don't see how giving information about the car can be an identifying comment.  
I purchased a :
 - Manufacturer (Ford, for example)
 - Model (Focus, for example)
 - Age (10 years old, for example)
 - Mileage (80k miles, for example)

Okell said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

In order to exercise this right you have to establish that the car does not conform to contract.  You will tell them that the car is in breach of s11 of the above legislation as it is not "as described".   (ie it is missing features described in the advert)

To what extent does the Auto Trader listing detail the car features?

Looking at a random listing ( https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202508085267075 )
there is a "Description" which I assume is written specifically by the Dealer and there is also a "view spec and features" button and a note under "about this advert" which reads:
The data displayed above details the usual specification of the most recent model of this vehicle. It is not the exact data for the actual vehicle being offered for sale and data for older models may vary slightly. We recommend you check the vehicle details with the seller before you buy...

Thanks - I don't use Autotrader so didn't know that.

What I would say is that I'm not sure their attempt to exclude liability in respect of an incorrect "Description" would work, unless the dealer has pointed out the actual discepancy to the consumer before purchase.  I think it's up to the dealer to point out discrepancies, not for the consumer to ask if everything is there.  After all, the dealer must - or should - know what they're selling

Under s11 "Goods must be as described" unless any changes have been expressly agreed with the consumer. 

I'd think any feature considered worthy or significant enough of being in an advert is a breach under s11 if it isn't present.

(On the other hand, under s9 "goods must be of satisfactory quality", there is an exemption in respect of any "faults" which the consumer should have discovered on examination.)

Or at least the above is my understanding of s11 but I could very well be wrong.

It is a bit of an aside, but I am genuinely interested to know how this factor around information about standard features does stand in law.  I am not so convinced it is as black and white as suggested.
The "as described" part works fairly well for most consumer items as they are really quite simple.  The three exceptions that occur regularly would seem to me to be:
 - house purchase - protection through due diligence and Conveyancer required
 - holiday
 - car

So, in the case of the car, a Dealer has a part of the advert which they specifically write.  I expect this part to be correct.
The advert might also link, for information, the standard features of that car model / age.  This is where variance can really be expected.  Car trims and specifications / features vary all the time.  Say you buy a used car that was registered March 2020, so it is five years old on a "20" plate.  Maybe the standard feature list for that car includes heated front and rear seats.  That is drawn down from a data base for March 2020 cars.  It is, however, quite possible that the car model spec was varied from, say, February 1st 2020.  So, the heated front and rear seats only applies to cars leaving the production line from 1st February.  The previous specification of the car had heated front seats only.  Your March 2020 car could easily be one of the updated spec, with heated front and rear seats, or could be one of the pre-update cars that was held in stock somewhere.
I think that we, the population at large, have to be deemed to have some level of intelligence and understanding and to take some responsibility ourselves.  This "standard feature" listing is provided for information.  If there is a feature that is critical to an individual, then the opportunity is there to verify prior to purchase.  In my case, heated rear seats are irrelevant but if heated rear seats are important, I would check that they are there and that they work.
A car is, for most people, the largest and most significant purchase they will ever make apart from housing so surely some due diligence is reasonable.

sheramber

monaymadlol said:

sheramber said:

So you are not wanting To return the car because you wantedthe missing features.

After all, you knew the parking feature was not on the car before you drove it away. If you wanted that feature It would have been better to have rejected the car at that time rather than accepting with it missing and now deciding it matters. 

You want to return it because it doesn’t have items that the advert quoted. 

Sounds more like buyer’s remorse and looking for a reason to reject. 

Huh? First sentence is incoherent. Who said i was not wanting to return the car? I said the opposite,  I will be returning it.

Secondly,  a) i was not aware of my right to reject after having paid for it, only after subsequent research, b) I can still reject it after, c) I could cope with 1 feature missing but not 2 or potentially more- so yes, not as advertised 

Read the whole sentence

sheramber said:

So you are not wanting To return the car because you wantedthe missing features.

And the last sentence

You want to return it because it doesn’t have items that the advert quoted. 

 

Aylesbury_Duck

monaymadlol said:

prowla said:

monaymadlol said:

Hi where do i stand on this. Sold as seen and my fault or can the car be returned?

It is missing a parking and media feature that was advertised 

The advert was on auto trader prepopulated 

When i collected and mentioned the parking feature,  having noticed when driving feature,  I asked them and they said sometimes the advert can be inaccurate and they can't amend the ads. 

Now a key media feature is missing. 

So my fault or do I have a case?

Paid on credit card

Thanks 

My opinion is that you accepted the car as-is: you say you questioned it and the salesperson said that the ad was incorrect.

Therefore you collected it and drove away knowing that the feature wasn't there.

There might be some mileage in complaining and seeing if they'll do something for you, but I wouldn't hold out much hope.

As per one or two other posts, it may be an optional feature which found its way into the listing, but I think the above covers such an error).

It's occurred to me that some of these optional features may be built in to the vehicle but only enabled via a subscription or extra charge; I don't know if they can be added retrospectively (either by main dealer or a third party).

Exactly,  the ad was on incorrect. It should have been correct or the burden was on them to outline any discrepancies too. Point is, the description did not match the car, and under CRA I should be seeking a full refund. 

You asked where you stand and whether or not you have a case.  People have given views you don't like, you're arguing with them and now you're telling us exactly where you stand and that you should be seeking a full refund.

Reject the car and get your refund.

ThumbRemote

Grumpy_chap said:

So, in the case of the car, a Dealer has a part of the advert which they specifically write.  I expect this part to be correct.
The advert might also link, for information, the standard features of that car model / age.  This is where variance can really be expected.  Car trims and specifications / features vary all the time.  Say you buy a used car that was registered March 2020, so it is five years old on a "20" plate.  Maybe the standard feature list for that car includes heated front and rear seats.  That is drawn down from a data base for March 2020 cars.  It is, however, quite possible that the car model spec was varied from, say, February 1st 2020.  So, the heated front and rear seats only applies to cars leaving the production line from 1st February.  The previous specification of the car had heated front seats only.  Your March 2020 car could easily be one of the updated spec, with heated front and rear seats, or could be one of the pre-update cars that was held in stock somewhere.
I think that we, the population at large, have to be deemed to have some level of intelligence and understanding and to take some responsibility ourselves.  This "standard feature" listing is provided for information.  If there is a feature that is critical to an individual, then the opportunity is there to verify prior to purchase.  In my case, heated rear seats are irrelevant but if heated rear seats are important, I would check that they are there and that they work.
A car is, for most people, the largest and most significant purchase they will ever make apart from housing so surely some due diligence is reasonable.

No matter how you might dress it up, this is not how the law works. The retailer is not forced to list/link to any standard features of the car. If they choose to do so, it is entirely their responsibility to make sure the details are correct. 

Your post seems to suggest that due diligence is required on the part of the consumer, but the retailer can get away with giving wrong information.

In reality the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations, and more recently the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act makes sure the situation is balanced - that the retailer (and often the manufacturer too) is responsible for providing accurate and complete information, and the consumer is then responsible for ensuring that the product meets their needs based on the information provided. 

Grumpy_chap

ThumbRemote said:

No matter how you might dress it up, this is not how the law works. The retailer is not forced to list/link to any standard features of the car. If they choose to do so, it is entirely their responsibility to make sure the details are correct. 

Your post seems to suggest that due diligence is required on the part of the consumer, but the retailer can get away with giving wrong information.

In reality the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations, and more recently the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act makes sure the situation is balanced - that the retailer (and often the manufacturer too) is responsible for providing accurate and complete information, and the consumer is then responsible for ensuring that the product meets their needs based on the information provided. 

I am asking and discussing a genuine question about adverts where a standard specification list is provided for information and that has been drawn down from a database.
From a practical perspective, errors in a standard specification are certain to occur.  There can be very limited differences between model designations, for example "ST-line" or "ST-line X", and precise trim for model designations can evolve but the "old" model might be registered after the "new" model and sometimes options can result in the omission of a standard feature, for example "add power opening sun-roof in lieu of roof rails".
(For information, the examples I cite are from the Ford website today for specifying a brand new Focus.)

With the way that online listing sites, not just Autotrader, commonly link to "standard" specification for the car make, model, date of registration, the number of cases where there is some discrepancy between the database listing and the actual car must be a significant proportion.
Is it really the case that a significant proportion of car listings are breaking the law and leave the Dealers open to virtually any car being rejected for some discrepancy in the database listing?
If that was the case, I would expect that the listing sites would cease adding that database information.

monaymadlol said:

Exactly,  the ad was on incorrect. It should have been correct or the burden was on them to outline any discrepancies too. Point is, the description did not match the car, and under CRA I should be seeking a full refund. 

You seem to have come here with your mind pre-determined to rejecting the car and wanting a full refund, then only heard the comments that are sympathetic in some way to that course of action while dismissing any challenge to that route and choosing not to answer any questions that have been asked.

If you were pre-determined in the outcome, then there was limited value in the thread and you should just go ahead with rejecting the car.  Good luck in receiving your refund.

If you came here for advice, then answering the questions that have been asked can help you on the next steps.  Even if you were pre-determined to proceed along the path of attempting to reject the car (whether or not that is likely to be successful), then people could comment on the way that might be done to have the best chance of success.
On a used car, not every fault (or missing feature) would be significant enough to warrant a full rejection and refund.
You have mentioned two features that are missing:
 - parking feature which you were aware at the time of concluding the contract so not grounds for a rejection
 - media feature

For some reason, you have repeatedly declined to say what the media feature is that the vehicle is missing.
Is this the SD card with the sat nav database?
Is this a common media issue with the type of car?  (You have declined to say what the car make and model is.)
Is the missing media feature a subscription service?

As well as trying to establish the strength of any claim, the forum might also be able to comment on how likely the chances of a refund are.  Even if your claim was 100% solid, your descriptor of the Dealer might suggest that rejecting the vehicle and recovering a refund are slim.  Sometimes, regardless of legal rights and wrongs, a pragmatic approach can be more sensible.

OR, is the whole issue some buyers-remorse as was suggested by another upthread?

It really is a case of engaging to get the best advice that the hive-mind can bring you, or sticking to your guns and just going for the vehicle rejection for full refund regardless.
I wish you luck in your next interactions with the Dealer.  Please do return to update us how you got on.
I really hope we are not responding to "I returned my car because it had a missing sat nav SD card but the Dealer never processed the refund and has now vanished, what now?"

ThumbRemote

Grumpy_chap said:

ThumbRemote said:

No matter how you might dress it up, this is not how the law works. The retailer is not forced to list/link to any standard features of the car. If they choose to do so, it is entirely their responsibility to make sure the details are correct. 

Your post seems to suggest that due diligence is required on the part of the consumer, but the retailer can get away with giving wrong information.

In reality the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations, and more recently the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act makes sure the situation is balanced - that the retailer (and often the manufacturer too) is responsible for providing accurate and complete information, and the consumer is then responsible for ensuring that the product meets their needs based on the information provided. 

I am asking and discussing a genuine question about adverts where a standard specification list is provided for information and that has been drawn down from a database.
From a practical perspective, errors in a standard specification are certain to occur.  There can be very limited differences between model designations, for example "ST-line" or "ST-line X", and precise trim for model designations can evolve but the "old" model might be registered after the "new" model and sometimes options can result in the omission of a standard feature, for example "add power opening sun-roof in lieu of roof rails".
(For information, the examples I cite are from the Ford website today for specifying a brand new Focus.)

With the way that online listing sites, not just Autotrader, commonly link to "standard" specification for the car make, model, date of registration, the number of cases where there is some discrepancy between the database listing and the actual car must be a significant proportion.
Is it really the case that a significant proportion of car listings are breaking the law and leave the Dealers open to virtually any car being rejected for some discrepancy in the database listing?
If that was the case, I would expect that the listing sites would cease adding that database information.

A 'standard specification' does not just appear out of thin air. The retailer has chosen to provide the information (or chosen to list on a site that does), and must therefore ensure it is accurate. 

Presumably there's some sort of disclaimer they provide, though even then I'm not sure how much that gets them off the hook. 

Grumpy_chap

ThumbRemote said:

A 'standard specification' does not just appear out of thin air. The retailer has chosen to provide the information (or chosen to list on a site that does), and must therefore ensure it is accurate. 

Presumably there's some sort of disclaimer they provide, though even then I'm not sure how much that gets them off the hook. 

Yes, there is a disclaimer which I quoted upthread.
I am also unsure to what extent that gets the Dealer off the hook.

Given the very frequent occurrence of the standard list having some inaccuracy somewhere, there must be some legal status otherwise a massive proportion of used cars would all suffer the potential consequences of "not as described".

Hence, I would like to understand the importance of this standard list being included in the listings.

TELLIT01

monaymadlol said:

TELLIT01 said:

In his initial post the OP say he purchased the car 'sold as seen'.

No that's not what I said as a statement of fact, but posed as a question in the context of if I had a legal right to full refund 

In your original post you said "Hi where do i stand on this. Sold as seen and my fault or can the car be returned?

How is that not what you said?

monaymadlol

TELLIT01 said:

monaymadlol said:

TELLIT01 said:

In his initial post the OP say he purchased the car 'sold as seen'.

No that's not what I said as a statement of fact, but posed as a question in the context of if I had a legal right to full refund 

In your original post you said "Hi where do i stand on this. Sold as seen and my fault or can the car be returned?

How is that not what you said?

Did you not see the question mark at the end of that sentence? It was me questioning if this was the case, rather than statement of fact, obviously. 

monaymadlol

So I sent a message to the dealer,  polite response back,  saying at this stage they won't be accepting the car back for a refund as that would be unfair and unreasonable. They referenced that ads not being fully accurate at times, there is a disclaimer to say as such, i tested and accepted the car as it was etc