Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Newly purchased car turned out to be an ex-company car.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2177 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My daughter recently purchased a car from a large car trader in South Wales. She was told that the car had a full service history, which she later found out that there was no service history. She also later found out that the car is an ex-company car (fleet car), which she was not informed about by the car salesman.

 

She paid over the book price for the car because she was under the impression that the car had a full service history and too later find out that the car is an ex-company car she now feels conned. The car sales company are not interested.

 

Is there an obligation by the car sales garage to disclose that the previous owner was a company and that the car was a fleet vehicle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

name and shame

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an obligation by the car sales garage to disclose that the previous owner was a company and that the car was a fleet vehicle?

 

No obligation to disclose unless asked.

If asked they can’t lie but the salesman might say “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure” rather than “No”.......

 

My daughter recently purchased a car from a large car trader in South Wales. She was told that the car had a full service history, which she later found out that there was no service history. She also later found out that the car is an ex-company car (fleet car), which she was not informed about by the car salesman.

 

She paid over the book price for the car because she was under the impression that the car had a full service history and too later find out that the car is an ex-company car she now feels conned. The car sales company are not interested.

 

How recently?!

 

The trader will say that she got a car of the condition it is and the mileage it is, and that the fact it was owned by a company is irrelevant, and she got to see its condition & mileage before deciding to buy it. She’ll certainly be entitled to the difference between having a FSH and not if she can show it was advertised as having a FSH and they don’t provide one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really don't give us many details.

 

What is the name of the garage?

when was the vehicle purchased?

does she have evidence that they claimed there was FSH?

Has she contacted the garage about it?

what did they say?

 

We really shouldn't have to tease these details out of people

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the nearly new cars sold these days are ex fleet cars, Usually company cars that have been used just like any other privately owned cars

 

If it was an ex fleet car then it should have a full service history as servicing would have been included within the contract

 

Ex fleet cars that i have owned in the past didn't come with a stamped service book as such, But a print out of its history

 

I would contact the fleet company for a copy of it, Failing that contact the main dealer, They should have its service history on their system

Link to post
Share on other sites

The retailer has an obligation to disclose any facts that may influence the person buying the vehicle. An evans Halshaw branch (in Wales IIRC) lost a small claims case last year due to this exact issue with the car previously being a hire car. If you look at many main agents adverts now they will say 'This vehicle may have previously been owned by a daily hire company'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The retailer has an obligation to disclose any facts that may influence the person buying the vehicle. An evans Halshaw branch (in Wales IIRC) lost a small claims case last year due to this exact issue with the car previously being a hire car. If you look at many main agents adverts now they will say 'This vehicle may have previously been owned by a daily hire company'.

 

There's a big difference though between having previously been a company fleet vehicle and having previously been a hire car vehicle. There's no reason a vehicle that has been used by a company car driver should be in worse condition or lower value than one of same age and mileage that was privately owned. Quite possibly the company vehicle would be in better condition because the fleet department makes sure it's regularly serviced, any issues are dealt with promptly etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a big difference though between having previously been a company fleet vehicle and having previously been a hire car vehicle. There's no reason a vehicle that has been used by a company car driver should be in worse condition or lower value than one of same age and mileage that was privately owned. Quite possibly the company vehicle would be in better condition because the fleet department makes sure it's regularly serviced, any issues are dealt with promptly etc.

 

I guess you are not aware of the class action suit regarding Glynn Hopkin? This suit is based on company/ex-fleet vehicles being sold without this being stated to the end purchaser.

 

I agree that company cars, in theory, are ‘better’ cars sometimes due to often being run without cost constraint and new cars benefit from being run in by a variety of driving styles.

 

The customers angle is that a fleet car has had multiple drivers but is still often advertised as a ‘one owner’ vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And no one owner car has ever had multiple drivers?

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the above is irrelevant, you have to take the car on face value. The reality is that cars run by a company are a better bet than those sold subject to private use. The seller is under no obligation to disclose previous use or that the vehicle has been used for other purposes. The disclosure would only apply to cars that are subject to an insurance right off!

 

 

Used cars are used by definition and whilst caveat emptor has been watered down it doesn't escape the fact that the definition of a used car means it has been used and is therefore not new!!!

 

 

Gawd this site is so annoying with daft claims, a gun ho attitude without or little factual documentation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not much you can do about the car being ex company, but if they advertised it as having fsh and they don't have any proof of it, she can reject the car or find out the difference in price and ask for a partial refund.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some company cars have multiple drivers, some who are careful and some who hammer the car. Same applies with hire cars. The cars do not belong to the driver so should they be considerate about the way the car is driven?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really don't give us many details.

 

What is the name of the garage?

when was the vehicle purchased?

does she have evidence that they claimed there was FSH?

Has she contacted the garage about it?

what did they say?

 

We really shouldn't have to tease these details out of people

 

 

Lack of relevant information is a perpetual problem on this site which leads to much wrong speculation and false expectations!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not in the motor trade but have bought, sold and especially rented a lot of cars in my time.

 

With a car I think most is down to the keeper / user and, as others have said, you get good and bad no matter what.

 

As an example when I have a project which involves a lot of miles I always rent cars for long term but still through the daily rental market and I treat them as if they were my own and can have them for the full mileage of the rental fleet - how can this be worse than a 2 private owner car with one bad driver who never leaves a town or city?

 

The proposed class action is a complete joke in my view as there is no loss to the consumer whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is up to prospective purchaser to ask to see the V5 log book. If refused, just walk away.

FSH is not the B all & end all considering what a service consists of nowadays in large garages.

Low mileage is not a guarantee of good quality----who ever got my first Motability car got a low mileage, fully serviced car, which I had thrashed from new, including towing a heavy trailer.

If you are spending a lot of money on a car then get a proper mechanic to check it out first.

Buy on straight HP. Never believe a word a car salesman tells you---most of them have no product knowledge anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...