Car not as advertised

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82056254#Comment_82056254

Many features can vary by spec, or if original purchaser paid for optional extra's.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82056268#Comment_82056268

And sometimes standard features are not there if the original purchaser paid for an "ilo" option.

This was common with features such as "air conditioning ilo sunroof".

It is also very common for the model listing to be referencing a typical data source for that make, model, year of car and these listings are usually clear that they are "standard" and pulled from a data set. Errors in the data set are to be expected given the way we as collective consumers seem to want our cars to be ever better and ever improving. So, the 2026.5 year model will be slightly different from the 2026.25 year model, but if I go into a dealership today and buy their stock car it may well have been a 2026.0 year model but then registered as 2026.5 so the features are marginally different. The buyer of that stock vehicle possibly gets a better discount for the model having slightly moved along.

Oh, how I remember when people were delaying their new company cars because the next model Sierra would have smoked rear headlights. Those were the days!

Certainly, in this case, the OP purchased the car in person and checking whether parking sensors are present or not - particularly if they are an important feature in making the purchase - would be something that an average can very easily assess. Indeed, if this was an important factor in the purchase process, I would not only want to check that the parking sensors were present but also that they all worked as they should.

Is it possible that there is some buyer's remorse?

ilo = in lieu of

Time2Go_25

I don't disagree that specs can vary, and that optional extras could exist, or that even standard options may be missing, my only suggestion is that it isn't unreasonable to expect the dealer to confirm the existence of the specifications that they say are on the car. You shouldn't be allowed to advertise that the car has x,y and z, without checking that they exist and you should be allowed to get away with it by saying "everything we say is on the car might not be"

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82056206#Comment_82056206

That applies to satisfactory quality rather than goods to be as described.

I’m fairly sure when the regs were written it would assume the consumer does not have the job of figuring out whether the goods match the description or not.

I’d say right to reject exists.

ThumbRemote

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82056206#Comment_82056206

"Car models have such a variety of 'features' these days that I don't think that is unreasonable."

Really? Surely the variety of features means it's more important for retailers to give the information, not less.

The Consumer Rights Act doesn't agree either. Section 11, "Goods to be as described" doesn't have any exclusions. In fact it makes it quite clear that "A supply of goods is not prevented from being a supply by description just because—(a)the goods are exposed for supply, and (b)they are selected by the consumer."

If the retailer provides a description it must be accurate. That's a statutory right, and no caveats can alter it.

The section of the Consumer Rights Act that mentions an examination is section 9, "Goods to be of satisfactory quality" with the phrase "does not cover anything which makes the quality of the goods unsatisfactory … where the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal". I think you'd be hard pushed to claim that the OPs issue falls under the section of "quality" when there's a specific section about "description"; in addition as you've already said, as cars have so many features it's hard to day that an examination ought to reveal everything.

It's a very simple case. There was a description, the car doesn't meet the description, the purchaser is entitled to a "remedy" as per section 19 which includes right to reject or a price reduction.

ThumbRemote

and whether our consumer rights will back us being able to claim for Carsa to pay for the Car Sensors as they shouldve been included

Yes, this is absolutely a remedy open to you.

You could reject the car. Alternatively you could ask Carsa to fit the sensors. If they refuse (keep the paperwork proving it!), you could get a third party to fit them and take Carsa to small claims court to recover the cost.

Woodstok2000

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82056239#Comment_82056239

The CRA doesn't say anything about the consumer examining goods with regard to being as described, that only comes in under quality. The goods must be as described, thats a requirement on the retailer, so the only question here is whether or not the disclaimer on the website absolves the seller from that requirement in the CRA. I would argue that it doesn't....

daveyjp

What car is it? How do you know it doesn't have them? My car has no visible signs of any reversing sensors, but when you start to reverse it will only activate the sensor when it detects something.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82056388#Comment_82056388

I get what you are saying. The like of Carsa their website will be updated from a head office, not from the site & given the number of cars they sell a week, along with the quick turn round. It would cost a lot of time & money for each car to be checked for features.

photome

have you looked at getting aftermarket sensors fitted and asking for a contribution from the dealer