Thread: Full Service History Advertised & Road Tax

Hi,

I wonder if someone can help. Yesterday I bought a car from a local car trader that had been advertised with 6 months Road Tax and Full Service History.

Before I left they gave me a folder with the paperwork in. I asked them specifically did it have the full service history in and they replied yes it had. But, when I got home I found that there are invoices for service work up to June 2007 but no garage stamps in a service history book and nothing after June 2007.

There are a couple of invoices dated after that but mainly for wheel alignment.

There is nothing else to suggest this car has been serviced since June 07.

They said I had to pay road tax, which I did initially as I didn't have the advert with me to show them. When I went to collect the car and debating the road tax they said they would refund it, but only half of it. Eventually they said they would refund all the £82.50.

They gave me a cheque (I paid cash) and said I could call back down today to have that changed to cash, so hopefully not a problem.

I feel the car has been mis sold and falsely advertised. I am going back to the garage later today but wanted to know my rights with regard to asking for my money back due to incomplete service history.

Can anyone advise me please? Very much appreciated.

Catherine

car is advertised as having a full service history. It doesn't. So, unless they can provide the full history as advertsied you have a case. If you like the car you could suggest a reduction in price by say £500 to reflect the devaluation of the car or you could also reject the car as it is not as advertised.

How did you pay for the car? Please tell me it wasn't cash.

Hi,

Thank you for your reply, yes, it was in cash , I am going down very soon so will let you know how I get on.

Catherine

Just got back from the garage. The seller (trade) insists there is full service history despite the fact there is nothing since 2007. He reckons the last known service (written on paper, no book, stamps etc) was just around 10,000 miles ago it doesnt need another one anyway yet; he did say they should be done every 10,000 miles or every year - so he is sticking with the 10,000 miles!!

I have asked him for proof and he just keeps saying "trust me, it has been serviced", his "proof" of that is because the car has invoices for wheel alignment and a new clutch!

I have given him until Monday to get the proper documents and/or proof of full service history. I had already rung trading standards (or their new name) about the road tax so seems I'll be ringing them again for advice on Monday morning.

If anyone has more advice it would be greatly appreciated.

Catherine

Servicing is always a 'whichever is sooner' basis. My current car is 20,000 miles or 12 months whichever is sooner. In your case it will be every 10,000 miles or 12 months - whichever is sooner.

Changing a clutch is NOT a service item. The mileage of the car will dictate which service should have been done, but the very minimum on any service is replace oil, oil filter, air filter and check brakes, steering and all fluids.

Trust him???? Why would you do that? He has lied in his advertising already regarding the history and tax. Even making you pay for the tax, which you will hopefully recover.

Stick to your guns. Produce the advertised FULL history or have the car back as incorrectly advertised.

If it actually hasn't been properly serviced since 2007 and bearing in mind this is now 2010, then I would be concerned about the condition of the oil and brake fluid. Brake fluid should be changed every 2 years, so keep that one up your sleve for now.

Hi Jimmy Spangle,

I've made a note of what you have said, thank you so much. Hopefully by Monday he will realise I'm meaning business and not just messing about.

I'll let you know how I get on, thank you so much for replying.

Catherine

I have just re-read the advert ready for phoning trading standards and realised that there are many false claims in it.

It says Full MOT - it has 5 months
Central Locking - doesn't have this
ABS - not sure so trying to find out

ABS is easy. Turn off the car, then turn on the ignition. Do you see an amber symbol on the dash wiuth the letters ABS on it? It should go out after 2-3 seconds. If so you have ABS, if not you do not.

An important item seldom mentioned in these cases is anti-freeze. Like brake fluid, it also should be changed every two or three years. To simply check strength and if need be bring up to strength is not enough, it must be replaced. This is because the antifreeze contains an important corrosion inhibitor, essential in many engines. All this should be included in service history.

So what year is the car???? What is the car??? We don't know if it has ABS, or CDLS. Speculation again at this moment in time I'm afraid.

Full MOT, how do you define that??

Might be jumping the gun here Jimmy thought I doubt it.

Lets get the facts straight first. We could be talking about an early eighties car???

Oh I completely agree HeliosUK. I was simply suggesting the bulb check which more or less confirms whether the car has ABS or not - unless Mr honest seller has tampered with bulbs etc.....

Full MoT I agree also, hence why I didn't mention. Full MoT has no definition in law as such, could mean the page is fully complete, could be the MoT certificate is not torn. Most judges however will define Full MoT as a 12 months (or near) MoT.

Full history I disagree with the comment above however. A full service history is always best if fully stamped of course, but is not a requirement if the services have been done and invoiced. The term full service history is proably best read as fully document service history. Stamping is not a requirement.

Can any one define the term "full service history" as per the law? If the car was not serviced for example after 2007 then you have the full service history and all legal advertising.
As for a full MOT, as you cannot get an incomplete or part MOT, the term is correctly used but if they said 12 month MOT and only supplied a10 month MOT, then they are in breach of advertising standards etc.

There is no 'Law' as such regarding service histories - only that of the trade descriptions act and sale of goods acts. However, full service history would by definition mean that every service has been done to manufacturers specification when due. In reality this never ever happens precisely because it is almost impossible to get the services done bang on time, but a week or two late or a thousand miles either side wouldn't breach anything really.

In this case it seems that the last service was done in 2007 in which case it does not have a fuylls ervice history.

Full MOT is term used to cut advertising costs by traders. It means "Full 12 months MOT".

I know what you are saying and agree, but in law the wods 'full MoT ' has no real meaning. Is 12 months a full MoT or is 13 months? I completely agree that I would read that as 12 months MoT too and I believe most judges would do so also, but as far as the letter of the law goes, the wording never says it has 12 months MoT thus you cannot assume it does.

Being picky I know, just trying to expand on peoples thought on this.

I would say the general consensus of opinion is that a full MOT is one between 11 and 13 months and this would seem reasonable. The Full service history I would argue only really applies to cars 5 years and under. So my view is that if has that and then shows a high degree of care with receipts or some proveable evidence then it is fair to consider it as having a full history.

In this case it is not known how old the car is. The other fact, as previously pointed out is that a stamp in a book is no guarantee either that it's been done properly.

You know my opinion of Main Stealers HeliosUK, so I will just suggest that the stamp inthe book would worry me more than no history.

Exactly!! You want to see mine. Very few stamps but a cherished vehicle with 160K on the clock and I turn down offers every day for it especially with it being on LPG.

So just goes to show, a full service history is a very subjective thing.