MotoNovo Finance - Jaguar on HPi with mileage discrepancy

[yogibear1]

11 hours ago, buyer-beware said:

OP, Get the foundations right first, know the facts and then you are in the position of power. 

I'm close to the 6 month window so it's up to the finance company to fix this error.

To me it's very significant as it will have a negative effect selling the car. 

Vehicle was sold hpi clear. It's not.

It's a problem.

[BankFodder]

Of course.
The purpose of this forum is to help you make sure that you get what you paid for. Nothing else.

The other questions which are being asked as to how such a thing might have occurred do not concern us. I have to say that I can scarcely imagine paying £18,000 for a vehicle and then have to go around sorting out administrative errors or having difficulty selling it on if I suddenly need to get some of my money back.
I find that there is an extraordinarily mediocre attitude.

 

Here's some fun. Calculate the reduction in value because of this problem and then go round to the dealer – not the finance company – go to the dealer and ask them for the amount of money back.
Do you think they will say "of course" or do you think they will balk?

I'm quite sure they will want 100% of the sale price regardless of what they gave you an exchange.

[Manxman in exile]

BF - I'm not disagreeing with you that it is prudent, given the timescale, for the OP to try to reject the car now so as to keep all his irons in the fire.

 

However, I'm not sure the outcome is necessarily as clear cut as you think.  At the moment the OP doesn't know if he's bought a car with a defect or not.  All he knows is that a car check has flagged up a mileage discrepancy on the 2015 MOT.  This may or may not have an innocent explanation (eg clerical error recording mileage or Jaguar have reset the odometer for some reason - I believe this is possible and legitimate*) and it may or may not be a reason to reject the car.

 

This is why I think the reason for the discrepancy is relevant.  If it's just a typo on the MOT record then there is no "defect" and the car appears to be as described.  I note on the govt. MOT check website it is possible to see where a particular MOT was carried out, but you need the V5C number to be able to access this.

 

I agree with you that the OP shouldn't be trying to rectify this with HPI himself, but I do think forewarned is forearmed and I would be wanting to prepare myself for any possible response from the finance company/ dealer.

 

As Buyer Beware pointed out, the mileage discrepancy seems to have occurred during one person's ownership.  Seems odd (but not impossible) that this would be deliberate as it would stick out like a sore thumb.

 

I also note that according to the TotalCarCheck posted by the OP, the car's price at a dealers would be ~ £21k not £18k.

 

OP - did you see a written report when you bought the car?  Do you know who the finance company used to do the check, if they did - although I presume it is in their best interests to ensure the car is "legit".

 

*  Although this may be possible and legitimate I'm not sure how it would be recorded.  Presumably on the car's service history?  I think Buyer Beware also suggested that the ECU can be interrogated to confirm actual mileage?

[yogibear1]

Hi i understand it MAY be a typo but my number one concern is that i can't sell the car, i have bought a vehicle that after 5 months i can't sell the car -  to me that is a major issue, a big issue. I'm very peed off.

The car was sold as hpi clear, the finance company said they will check the vehicle is fine before they released funds..

How, when i did a vehicle check report the fail was staring me in the face?

2 traders checked and they said its got a mileage discrepancy we don't want it.

If i tried to sell the car with a dodgy gearbox it wouldn't sell, the same as the cloud over the mileage issue.

If there is a mileage issue ie discrepancy this must be disclosed by the seller, this wasn't or i would of walked away.

No one told me, should they of? yes they should, law!

Edited April 17, 2019 by yogibear1
word included

[BankFodder]

This is all getting rather esoteric. The fact is that there was a defect. Whether it was the result of some deliberate subterfuge or simply carelessness, is neither here nor there.

The vehicle is defective. The defect doesn't need to refer to some mechanical problem. It simply needs to refer to some flaw about the vehicle.

To give you an example, if you bought a kit or a medication or a beauty treatment and the instructions were incorrect so that by following them you caused yourself some injury, then the product would be considered to be defective.

I don't think that that is too bad an analogy

[yogibear1]

Thank you BankFodder i thought i was going crazy!

[dx100uk]

do you have a friendly mot guy you use?

by simply getting a copy of the current MOT it should show the last XXXX reading s over the years now its all online.

he can do that for you at not cost,

 

we got a car recently, no mot copy

got one it shows the last 7 yrs readings at the time of each mot...could help?

 

sorry if this has been done already etc 

only on a basic phone at present out in the wilds of Scotland training my sheepdog

 

 

[BankFodder]

4 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

... out in the wilds of Scotland training my sheepdog

 

 

 

As one does!

[yogibear1]

8 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

do you have a friendly mot guy you use?

by simply getting a copy of the current MOT it should show the last XXXX reading s over the years now its all online.

he can do that for you at not cost,

3

The mot says minus 26000 miles in 2015 from 2014

Edited April 17, 2019 by yogibear1
added

[dx100uk]

Ok

Can you post the figures as the mot says exactly?

then we might be able to detect a typo??

like wrong number key hit..

 

read upload pdf please

[Manxman in exile]

The OP has already shown the mileage figures in a PDF in an earlier post - the report from TotalCarCheck.  This also shows the vehicle's reg number and the full MOT history can be checked online from that.  (Probably should have been checked before buying the car...)

 

I'm still interested in what report the finance co. got.

 

I have looked at the 2014 and 2015 mileages and it's not obvious to me that a transposition error has occurred, but it could be some other kind of input error.

 

I'm not saying it was an input error - just that nobody here knows whether it is or not.

[Manxman in exile]

2 hours ago, BankFodder said:

This is all getting rather esoteric. The fact is that there was a defect. Whether it was the result of some deliberate subterfuge or simply carelessness, is neither here nor there.

The vehicle is defective. The defect doesn't need to refer to some mechanical problem. It simply needs to refer to some flaw about the vehicle.

To give you an example, if you bought a kit or a medication or a beauty treatment and the instructions were incorrect so that by following them you caused yourself some injury, then the product would be considered to be defective.

I don't think that that is too bad an analogy

 

I think you may be begging the question.  You are assuming as a fact that the mileage is wrong.  You don't know that, the OP doesn't know it and none of the rest of us do.

 

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the discrepancy is down to a clerical error in recording the mileage at the 2015 MOT.

 

If, and I emphasise "if", this is the case, and the mileage was actually correct when the OP bought the car, then there can be no defect and the OP would have no remedy as he bought the car that was described.

 

Please note I am not saying that this is what has happened - just that it's possible.  I feel the OP is being led to believe that there is only one possible outcome here - a successful one for them - whereas I would be more cautious.  By all means attempt to reject the car, but it may not be a foregone conclusion.

 

FWIW I think it's a very bad analogy.  Again you assume as a fact that the mileage is wrong.  I would not make that assumption.

 

If I were OP I'd be wanting a Jag dealer to confirm the mileage from the ECU (I believe this can be done) and/or check recorded mileages from the service history.  (Does the OP have a full service history?  Mileage ought to be evident there).

[BankFodder]

Just a brief response from a telephone.

nicely argued but you seem to be making an assumption that we have assumed that the mileage is wrong and the paperwork is correct. Not at all. the mileage could be correct and the paperwork wrong but whichever it is it adds up to a defect.

 

 

[dx100uk]

aha.. back at the bothy here time to bounce this around a load of sheep framers...

right that report

 

I think anybody with 2 brain cells can see whats possibly gone on here

 

in 2015-2016 it suddenly did 46K miles in ONE year

that's 156miles per day every day

that's pretty impossible

and that 46K is the year after the wrongly reported figure whereby the car did -26K miles.

 

2 and 3 are on most keyboard are directly above or below 5 and 6

 

I we all think the mistyped mileage for 2014-2014 should be 56,519

so that would give:

 

2014 49,674

2015 56,519

2016 69,564

2017 74,609

2018 78,887.

 

ok that's 13k miles in one year whereby most of the others are 5k miles ish.

 

best we can think of

 

and all the sheep say BAAA!!

 

as for tess she's sitting on the fence..

 

 

[Manxman in exile]

1 minute ago, BankFodder said:

Just a brief response from a telephone.

nicely argued that you seem to be making an assumption that we have assumed that the mileage is wrong and other paperwork is correct. Not at all. the mileage could be correct and the paperwork wrong but whichever it is it adds up to a defect.

 

 

 

If the mileage is correct, what paperwork is wrong and whose paperwork is it?

 

If the mileage is correct and as described by the vendor, how can there possibly be a defect and a remedy against the vendor?  If there's been a clerical error it's probably been committed by whomever did the MOT in 2015.  Does the OP sue them?

 

Please note my use of "if" in this and other posts - I'm trying not to make assumptions, just pointing out that there could be an innocent explanation other than that the car has been clocked.  And that it may be helpful for the OP to at least be made aware of this (probably unlikely) possibility.

 

BF - I am surprised that you can be 100% certain that there must be a defect.

[dx100uk]

if only I were nearer I could do it

have the complete actual jaguar diagnostics tools.

paid a few K for them a few years ago.

 

there that's my bit for the day.

[Manxman in exile]

We've cross-posted dx100.

 

I'm not saying there has been a clerical error here - simply that it's just as likely (if not more likely) than that the car has been clocked.  56k mistyped as 23k is certainly a feasible explanation. 

 

I'm not sure BankFodder will shift from the certainty of there being a defect though...

 

Needs a diagnostic run or examination of service history to bottom this out.

 

EDIT: I'd be surprised if somebody with the knowledge and wherewithal to clock an electronic (I assume!) odometer would be thick enough to record negative annual mileage between MOTs...

Edited April 17, 2019 by Manxman in exile
Addition

[Manxman in exile]

Just to clarify, if there was a MOT mileage typo in 2015, then I don't see how there can be any remedy now against the finance company or dealer if the recorded total mileage on the car was correct when sold to the OP.

 

If the wrong paperwork referred to by BF in #68 is the HPI/TotalCarCheck report, what remedy does the OP have against them - there is no relationship between them?  Also, IIRC, HPI specifically excludes liability re cloned cars amongst other things.  I would not be surprised if they also exclude errors caused by misleading or erroneous source material for the same reason.  How can they verify a mileage figure taken from a government website and originating from a MOT tester four years ago?

 

If it is a typo the OP doesn't need a remedy against the finance co. or the dealer because the car will be exactly as advertised (with respect to mileage).  Yes - the OP needs to get HPI (or is it DVLA - they are mentioned in respect of errors on the govt. MOT website?) to correct the MOT mileage.  Now I'm not sure if the dealer or finance company can or should help the OP with this.  That's why if I were in the OP's shoes I'd be checking the service history mileages and/or contacting Jaguar myself in order to get this sorted ASAP.

 

But I may be wrong and the car may be clocked and the OP get his money back.  I try never to be 100% sure of anything.

[BankFodder]

I'm not completely sure what is being said above.

However, my understanding is that when the vehicle was bought, there was an inaccuracy in respect of the mileage which is recorded against their vehicle. That will be the responsibility of the person who sold it to the OP. It may not have been the dealer's fault, but the OP was entitled to receive a vehicle free of any defects either in the mechanics of the vehicle or in the associated paperwork.

I have a feeling that we've all said our piece now and we all know where we stand. You have a consumer-facing view and you have a trade-facing view. Let's leave it at that and see what the OP decides to do.

At the end of the day if it goes to court then it is a matter for the judge.

[yogibear1]

The point is as I've said time and time again.

I have a vehicle that I can't sell, I've bought a car that is unsellable due to a failed Hpi, if a vehicle has a discrepancy be it for whatever reason the seller needs to disclose it. the report states "DISCREPANCY" it is not hpi clear. It was sold as clear.

 

 

[BankFodder]

Yes, I think it's time to move on from this discussion now and take the action that you think is necessary and that you are prepared to go along with.

[Manxman in exile]

On ‎18‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 09:03, BankFodder said:

I'm not completely sure what is being said above.

However, my understanding is that when the vehicle was bought, there was an inaccuracy in respect of the mileage which is recorded against their vehicle. That will be the responsibility of the person who sold it to the OP. It may not have been the dealer's fault, but the OP was entitled to receive a vehicle free of any defects either in the mechanics of the vehicle or in the associated paperwork.

I have a feeling that we've all said our piece now and we all know where we stand. You have a consumer-facing view and you have a trade-facing view. Let's leave it at that and see what the OP decides to do.

At the end of the day if it goes to court then it is a matter for the judge.

 

I'm not entirely sure what your understanding is so firmly based on and I do not understand how you can be absolutely sure that your view is correct and that there is a defect in the vehicle.

 

Let's say the OP bought the Jag with 80,000 on the clock and it was advertised as such. 

If in fact it had covered 106,000 then I would agree with you that there is a problem with this sale. 

Now it actually appears that some discrepancy has been uncovered in the mileage recorded in 2015 which appears to indicate the car was clocked by 26,000 miles between MOTs. 

 

The point I'm trying to make (and to be honest I'm surprised that you are not completely sure what it is) is that if the discrepancy in 2015 is due to a typo or some other clerical error, and the 80,000 miles (or whatever it is) is in fact correct, then there can be no defect because the OP has bought exactly the car that was advertised and that he thought he was buying. 

 

I don't see how a clerical error in 2015 can possibly amount to a defect now that entitles the OP to reject the car.  And the OP could not have been misled by this error because they never checked it themselves before purchase.

 

I agree that the OP needs to get this bottomed out with HPI

- that is, has it actually been clocked or is it simply a clerical error in 2014? 

 

As has already been posted, the OP should be able to sort this out definitively by checking the service interval mileages on the service history or by asking Jaguar to confirm it.

 

Also, I'd be grateful if you could explain the reference to "...a trade-facing view."?

 

 

 

 

[Manxman in exile]

On ‎18‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 15:31, yogibear1 said:

 

The point is as I've said time and time again.

I have a vehicle that I can't sell, I've bought a car that is unsellable due to a failed Hpi, if a vehicle has a discrepancy be it for whatever reason the seller needs to disclose it. the report states "DISCREPANCY" it is not hpi clear. It was sold as clear.

 

 

 

Yes - this needs to be resolved, but I think you need to try to be a little more certain about what has happened. 

 

First(?) MOT was in 2014 and for the 2015 MOT the car had covered ~ 26,000 less than had been recorded the previous year. 

 

Most relatively new cars have service intervals which indicate a service around MOT time (not sure about Jaguar). 

 

What does the service history for your Jag reveal about mileage covered in 2014/15? 

Does it reflect the mileage recorded for the two MOTs? 

 

Also have you tried contacting Jaguar to see what they say about the mileage from service records / ecu output?

When you say it was sold as clear, what did the finance company actually tell you?

[yogibear1]

Hi

i am waiting for the finance company to get back to me, it's up to them to put this right, not me. I have found out that if there is any mileage discrepancy whatsoever, this has to be disclosed by the seller and put on the bill of sale so the buyer is aware of this.

 

[BankFodder]

The OP is correct. Manxman is wrong and is becoming a troll.

I don't intend to be go further on this except to say

 

 

To summarise, the burden of proof is on the dealer to show that the defect was not there – certainly within the first six months. Furthermore, if there is a defect, than the quality/severity of the defect is not relevant. It entitles you to your right to reject within 30 days or your right to reject after a failed repair during six months.

Only after six months do the normal common law rules of contract come in play. But even then, it is not a question of proving or disproving a defect. It is simply a question of showing that you have not had satisfactory service/quality from the item for a reasonably expected period of time.

I would certainly agree that these are very heavy burdens/responsibilities for any dealer. But this is what consumer-facing legislation is all about. It's all about consumer protection and the reason for it is that if you place the burden upon the dealer then it creates a huge incentive upon the dealer to be careful or if the dealer has to source his goods from a manufacturer then it puts pressure on the dealer to put pressure on the manufacturer to make sure that goods are of a sufficient quality.

As far as I'm concerned, this is good social planning – and we all benefit – including the car dealer when that car dealer goes off to buy other things such as computers, telephones, music systems, televisions, and even their own vehicle.

It encourages quality control at source – and this is highly desirable and is only achievable by having this kind of consumer legislation.