Gem Cars Ltd Online Car Purchase - not in condition as described. **RESOLVED**

[BankFodder]

As requested by my site team colleague at above, you should give us the details of the dealer who supplied you with this vehicle.

Also you say that you have been referred to some kind of mediation service. What is that mediation service please?

Did you pay by cash or by bank transfer or did you use a credit card?

Also, when did you buy the car? How much did you pay? Tell us something about the car including make, model, and mileage.

[BankFodder]

I'm afraid that if you don't give us this kind of information then we are unlikely to be able to help you very much.

 

Car dealer identities are essential. We can access lots of information about these people and find out how reliable or otherwise they have been with other people in the past.

Very often getting a decision in your favour is relatively straightforward but enforcing the decision can be very difficult.

There is no official motoring mediation service. There is a professional body which tends to serve the motor trade and generally finds against the customer.

It is clear that you may have been misled as to the condition of the car – and who knows what else. The story you are giving us that you have bought a vehicle at a long distance from you and then the balance was paid by bank transfer is a very common story and I'm afraid it is the beginnings of a very difficult situation.

There is even one firm of dealers that has been trading under different names and has even started its own mediation service which it recommends that its customers go to when there is a dispute. However, the customers do not realise that the "mediation service" is actually the dealer's own pet project and which inevitably finds against the customer.

Trading standards are aware of this and haven't done very much about it at all yet.

If you think that somehow or other you are going to suffer disadvantage by publishing the name of the dealer that you are involved with and I'm afraid that you are mistaken. You simply bring comfort to those dealers and do yourself a great disservice.

 

[BankFodder]

Thank you for the information. The fact that the AA it is the mediator is reassuring. However I'm afraid that it is certainly not a good idea to pay by bank transfer because you have surrendered all your rights which you would have enjoyed under the consumer credit act 1975. That Act places responsibilities on the finance company or credit card company and makes them equally liable with the dealer.

If the full refund is still on the table then my suggestion is that you take it quickly. If you look at the horror stories on this forum, you will discover that your circumstances fit neatly into the profile.
You have bought a motorcar relying simply on the advertisement and without seeing it. The motorcar is a considerable distance from you. You have paid by bank transfer.
Although you may feel that you have bought yourself a cheap motorcar, you haven't factored in all the difficulties that come with buying a car 150 miles away. If defects need to be repaired – then it's 150 mile journey each way. If the car breaks down completely then it's 150 miles of vehicle transportation and no doubt an argument with the dealer about who is responsible. In fact you would be the dealer who would be responsible but I'm afraid that the costs of transporting a vehicle that kind of distance will always lead to an argument.

 

We have lots of dealers on this forum who have not stepped up to their obligations and who have managed to avoid attempts to enforce judgements against them and most of them are on Companies House and appear to be completely legitimate.

What is it about Gem Cars Ltd, Lincoln which made you think that they are especially legitimate? Of course they might be – we haven't checked yet – but why did they appear to be any different from any other used-car dealer which trades as a limited liability company and which is registered on Companies House?

I would suggest that you go for the full refund but also you had better find out who is going to take responsibility for getting the car back to the dealer and pay the cost of this.

I'm afraid that my view is that if you decide to settle for some reimbursement of the purchase price because of the defects that you have found, that you will find yourself in further difficulty down the line if the car starts to exhibit other problems.
 

[BankFodder]

I have had a quick look for this company and I have to say that what I'm finding is rather reassuring. So far I can't find any particular evidence that raises particular suspicions that they are an untrustworthy dealer.

As already said, it is very comforting that they appear to be happy to use the AA as a mediator. It may be that our first concerns when we had the story are unfounded.
However, it is still a bad idea to buy a car at a considerable distance and also to pay by bank transfer.

Is the refund still on the table? Do you still prefer to keep the car?

[BankFodder]

Have you had the car checked over? Have you had it MOT'd?

I know that you're going to tell us that it has come with an MOT so that it doesn't need one – however, getting an MOT will be very cheap way of doublechecking its basic condition.
I would urge you to get the car MOT'd and to get a general health check from a garage which you trust.

I'm sure that it came with an MOT. Is it a recent MOT? What is the address of the MOT station which carried out that test?

[BankFodder]

You have certainly damage your interest by accepting money for the bonnet.

On what condition did you pay the money?

You say that they don't supply dodgy cars but on the other hand you say that you thought they were just hoping that you wouldn't notice or be overly bothered about the damage to the bonnet.
I'm afraid that I see very little difference between that and being a dodgy dealer. At the end of the day, if you are right that they hope that you wouldn't bother or wouldn't notice, then clearly they were trying to get away with fogging you off with something which was not as described.

In our book this is completely unacceptable.

You talk sometimes about getting trading standards involved – but I'm afraid it's not as easy as you think. Unless you know somebody in the organisation, you have no direct access to trading standards. You would simply have to log it with Citizens Advice – and they will entry onto the trading standards database but then nothing will be done by trading standards unless they get such a substantial number of complaints about that particular organisation that it moves to the top of the queue.

Citizens advice will do very little for you except simply advise you to write letters and they won't guide you through anything more. I'm afraid that citizens advice are rather unambitious about helping people enforce their consumer rights.

Tell us how the payment was made and whether there was any written agreement which accompanied it.

 

Who did you pay for the car check?

[BankFodder]

I've looked at the video. It's very nicely presented video and I think it's a great way to present a used car to potential purchasers. It seems to be very nicely put together and comprehensive.

It draws attention to the stone chips on the bonnet but of course I don't know whether it has drawn attention to all of them. On the other hand, when I look at the pictures that you have supplied the stone chips are much more serious than they appear to be in the video.

I think it would need an independent person to look at the stone chips directly and then to watch the video and see whether in fact the stone chips have been underplayed.

I have to say that this dealer seems to be quite impressive compared to the majority of used-car dealers who find their names on this forum. It's impressive that they seem to be communicating although clearly relations between you have broken down.
I do think that their original cash offer is pretty derisory but I think it's very impressive that they are now prepared to offer your refund and organise collection at 150 miles away.

All this says quite a lot about the dealer and I have to say that compared to many of the dealers we find in this forum I would feel more comfortable about buying a vehicle from them than most others that I'm aware of.
On the other hand, your photographs of the stone chips are really quite dramatic and I have to say that if that really represents what they are then I would be extremely concerned as well.

I think there are other factors here. I've already pointed out that if you have other defects which need to be dealt with at some point by this dealer and it may well be that you will have to return the car 150 miles back to the dealership for them to attend to them. This is expensive and time-consuming – especially if it will take more than a day to address the problem. This means you would either have to stay the night or you would have to organise return travel – once again very time consuming and of course expensive.

Imagine if the car happened to break down completely and it was a question of returning it to the dealership, you might then be saddled with the cost of transporting it to the dealer.

The second very serious matter now is that relations between you have broken down and there is a great deal of animosity and suspicion.

This may partly be because they are being discussed on this forum – but also it is clear that your initial dialogue with them was quite conflict oriented. Of course I can understand that you were very disappointed and angry when you found that the condition of the car was not what you had been led to believe.
However I suppose it might have been better to adopt a more careful approach at the outset until you had tested the reaction of the dealer. If they had then been obstructive, then of course you would be right to change your style of approach.

I do think that in the circumstances you should take the refund and allow the vehicle to be collected and put it down to experience. It's a nice looking car, and it may well be generally in good condition but because of your feeling about the cosmetic condition and your feeling about what was represented to you and what you in fact received – coupled with the breakdown in relations between you and the dealer, I think you would be much safer out of it.

 

[BankFodder]

Don't worry. I don't think anybody is blaming or criticising you. It's perfectly understandable that you are on edge about it because when you saw the bonnet and it was different to your understanding from the video, I think anybody would have been rather annoyed about it.

Thanks for uploading material. It's all very useful and it seems to me that relations rather deteriorated on both sides.

Please keep us updated and let us know what you want to do.

[BankFodder]

Well if you are still minded to hang onto it then I would put it in for a full proper check and a new MOT.

But I would get it done quickly

 

 

[BankFodder]

This is a general comment on the entire situation.

First of all that it's been mentioned, by the dealer I believe, that there are no consumer rights in this case because the car is of satisfactory quality. However, the dealer is wrong. This complaint does not relate to the requirement of "satisfactory quality". It relates to the statutory provision that goods must match their description. One can say that this is a much easier factor to measure then "satisfactory quality" which is a kind of rule of thumb view based on the expectations of reasonable consumers.

It's very much easier to look at the description of the vehicle when it was being advertised and to compare it with what was actually received.

So in that respect, the question is still at large whether the vehicle was as described. In respect of that if the OP is interested in taking some kind of action then I would start off by getting an independent inspection of the bonnet and of the video to see whether an independent inspector formed the view that the damage to the bonnet had been underplayed – either deliberately or accidentally, it doesn't matter.

The second comment here relates to the quantum of damages which will be available if the OP brought an action against the dealer and succeeded.

I understand that the entire cost of re-spraying the bonnet and then blending the colour into the wings et cetera is something like about £550.

This means that an expenditure of £550 would produce a car bonnet which was essentially in new condition. However, the OP did not purchase a new car. The OP purchased a car which was second-hand and which had already suffered normal wear and tear and in respect of which at least some damage on the bonnet had been pointed out.
I'm going to say now that the pictures supplied by the OP clearly have emphasised the damage. I don't know whether they have exaggerated the damage but certainly if the dealer had posted those pictures, then he would not been able to sell the car – or at least not at that price. From that point of view is it seems that it is quite possible that there was an element of underplay.

If an independent inspection decided that the car had been mis-described and this report persuaded the court, then the court would award a judgement. However the court would then have to decide on the award of damages.

A court would balk at awarding a level of damages which essentially handed the claimant a bonnet in brand-new condition – in other words better than she expected to receive when she bought the car.

This means that the court have to calculate an apportionment of damages. This calculation would be based on the cost of repairing the bonnet and subtracting the value of the damage already in existence.

So for instance, cost of repairs equals £550. Value of existing damage, say, £300 – total award approximately £250.

Of course I have no idea whether these figures are correct. The only figure we can actually be certain of is the cost of repairing the bonnet. The rest of it is subject to argument and eventually a decision by the court.
A reasonable way of measuring the value of the existing damage to the bonnet might be by trying to assess its effect on the resale value of the car. 

What I'm saying here is that people have to tailor their expectations to take into consideration the diminution in value of the goods they have purchased by taking into account the age of that good and any defects that have already been pointed out.
Reciprocally the dealer has a certain duty of candour and that is to be brutally frank about what they are selling in order to avoid these unpleasant and damaging disputes.

I understand the dealer has already paid out £150. Then the OP may still be out of pocket but she will not be out of pocket to the tune of a completely renovated bonnet.

 

[BankFodder]

Thank you for his contribution.

I'm afraid that you are wrong in almost every detail.

Also you should understand that the AA is a very decent and reputable organisation – but they are risk averse.

Let's hope we don't have to test our various opinions any further than this forum

[BankFodder]

A brief note and that is to say that if you accept extra money, you should make sure that this is on condition that it satisfies the cosmetic problem with the bonnet and does not waive your rights in respect of any other defects which may present themselves at some point.

It would not be a good idea to surrender all your rights for a relatively small payment – certainly small in the event that for instance, the gearbox packs up or some other catastrophic event

[BankFodder]

We are not aware of any false statements here. If there were full statements then we would remove them. The dealer has been actively engaged on this thread and and hasn't pointed out anything that was false and in fact seems to have confirmed things that have been said.

If the dealer considers that there are false statements here then the dealer should contact us using our contact form at the bottom of this forum and identify the particular words which are of concern.

I'm afraid that we sometimes get traders trying to protect or clean up their reputation by making these kinds of offers – or even sometimes threats to their customers.

[BankFodder]

So where are you now on this? Is there money outstanding? Have you made some other arrangement? Do you consider the matter closed now?

[BankFodder]

Meaning the AA?

[BankFodder]

So I think you will have to decide what you want to do. It's a matter of £112, I think.

You will have to decide whether you think you can convince a court that the demonstration video were so dramatically different to what you actually received that it amounts to a breach of the statutory requirement that goods conform to their description.
You will also have to satisfy a court that the money you have already received plus the further £112 still takes account of the reduction in value caused by the damage as presented by the dealer.

There is a risk that a court might decide that you have had enough money given the fact that you expected to find some damage to the bonnet. In that case, you would lose your claim and of course you would also lose your court costs.
The court costs wouldn't be very much for a claim of this value – but it is something to bear in mind.

Luckily all court hearings are being conducted on the telephone so it is most unlikely that there would be an in-person trial. But if there was and if the dealer decided to travel to your local court to attend the trial then if the dealer succeeded, he will also be awarded his reasonable costs of travel.

[BankFodder]

Thank you. Your list of precautions makes a lot of sense.

One thing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth here – and I've seen it with several other dealers as well – is the application of monetary inducements to remove references to them on the Internet.

This kind of paid censorship is very unpleasant and unworthy.

Kudos to you for standing your ground on this point