advice needed - trade description act

[mobeyone]

My nieghbour called in and spoke about his shock when he went in to pick his car up from a dealer today... and no its not an mb!

He owns a lexus is2000 sport reg 53/04 which had 9k on the clock, 1 owner since new and mint. Paid close to £18k for it and had trouble free motoring, has a giggle when he sees me under my bonnet everyday!

Well, today he had his 20k service and asked about his warratny and was told he only had a few months left.. why? his car is a 2003/52.. year of registration is a year later.... he was adamant that his car was not two years old when he bought it but they showed him on the computer etc and he checked his logbook when he got in and sure enougth, it was two years old when he bought it.

So, whats the legal position on this? I have told him that they have sold under false pretences and should have disclosed the car was two years old at the time of sale. He has paid over the market rate for a 2003/53 model and when he sells or part exs, he will lose out then.

What is the situation with this? I think this is something to do with the number of cars sat in idle waiting to be sold and I for one would not want to buy a car older than its year of reg - legal grey area i take it? and one which is manipulated by car dealers?

What can he do? I have told him to look for loss of cost of ownership aswell as free servicing or to hand the keys back, what woudl you do?

WOuld appreciate any advice you can give me so i can tell him.

mobe

 

[pammy]

So - this is a 2003 car and should be on a 52 plate yes? Yet he was told it was a 2004 and on a 53 plate and I presume it is on a 53 plate - if so this is illegal It is making the car look younger than it is and is not supposed to be able to happen. Something is deffo wrong and I would be yelling from the ceiling if this was me. What does his receipt etc show? Does he have the original sales details etc.

But looking back what I think you're saying is that it was manufatured in 52 but not registered until 53 in which case surely the warranty should run from when it was registered - either way - I'd still be shouting from the ceiling

 

[marcos]

My wifes new A-Class was manufactured in September but the warranty runs from when it is first registered. Surely this applies to all cars.

I reckon either your neighbour is either a bit daft or the Lexus garage are dirty lying little toe rags. I'd opt for the second choice myself

I would certainly speak to the office of fair trading about this and then take out a massive advert in the local paper telling everyone how crap the dealership is.
And of course beat the salesman who sold it to him with a large blunt object.

You might want to tell him to try the first option and try not to get to the beating stage

 

[grasmere]

get him to phone trading standards - I have used them in the past and found them very helpful

 

[dtorbett]

trading standards have proven useful for other situations regarding warranties, not like this, but they still may prove useful for advise.

 

[mobeyone]

cheers guys and just as i thought.

Trading standards have been informed and he has all documentation including original sale of reciept which clearly states the car as being a 53/04. At no time was it ever mentioned that the car was a 2003/52 so he has quite frankly been shafted. i would be going with him but hes a bright lad and knows what hes doing.

Will let you know how he gets on but i would be handing the keys back, and no hes not happy!

Pammy - thing is the car is a year old from the date of reg so this is a no goer anyway, who would want to buy a car already 12 months old?

Me thinks this lexus dealer is not going to be happy tomorrow!

 

[Rory]

thing is the car is a year old from the date of reg so this is a no goer anyway, who would want to buy a car already 12 months old?

Don't get this at all - it's perfectly feasible for the car to have been built and then stood around for any period (could easily be 12 mths) and then registered.

I think you're confusing things by saying 52/53. The car has a date of manufacture and a date of first registration. It could have been built in 1999 and first registered in Jan 2004 on a 53 plate. The warranty would normally run from date of first registration, but there are exceptions although I wouldn't have expected any from Lexus.

If it was first registered in 2003 then it's got the wrong plate on it - no idea how that could happen.

 

[Plodd]

Don't get this at all - it's perfectly feasible for the car to have been built and then stood around for any period (could easily be 12 mths) and then registered.

I think you're confusing things by saying 52/53. The car has a date of manufacture and a date of first registration. It could have been built in 1999 and first registered in Jan 2004 on a 53 plate. The warranty would normally run from date of first registration, but there are exceptions although I wouldn't have expected any from Lexus.

Rory has said almost exactly what I was going to say. If it's a 53 reg then it's a 53 reg and no way could it display a 52 reg. And I believe all warranties run from date of reg not date of build. It looks as though either he,you or the person he spoke to has got the wrong end of the stick or i'm going daft.

 

[Plodd]

From the Lexus website.

When does the warranty begin?
The warranty period begins from the date when the vehicle is registered.

 

[Rory]

Id love to see the logbook which, for what Mobe says to be correct, would have to show (something like):
Registration Mark xx53 xxx
Date of First Registration 01 01 2003

 

[mobeyone]

Warranty aside - question is would you buy a car knowing that the car is in fact older than the year of registration? I would not. the car was advertised as an 2004 model when in fact the car is a 2003 model.

Why would i/you want to buy a car that has been sat idle for a year? when i can get a car straight from the factory?

I think they will cover up the warranty but to me he was misled over the car and i think he will be looking to hand the keys back.

imagine trying to explain this to a buyer in three years time?

 

[Rory]

Warranty aside - question is would you buy a car knowing that the car is in fact older than the year of registration? I would not. the car was advertised as an 2004 model when in fact the car is a 2003 model.

Most cars are slightly modified / upgraded every year, but unless you were very well up on that particular model, you probably wouldn't know. The next 'model year' cars usually come out in about the middle of the previous year. Ford upgrade their cars several times a year, so you get 2005.25, 2005.5 etc model years. You often see it mentioned in Ford adverts, and the best deals are only available on the older cars.

Why would i/you want to buy a car that has been sat idle for a year? when i can get a car straight from the factory?

Whoever first bought it probably got a very good deal, or the dealer may have registered it just to try and shift it.

I think they will cover up the warranty but to me he was misled over the car and i think he will be looking to hand the keys back.

imagine trying to explain this to a buyer in three years time?

Well if the registration is wrong then he shouldn't have a problem handing it back. However if (as I suspect) the car was first registered on 2004 then it's a 2004 car. Unless the paperwork says '2004 model year' he's on a hiding to nothing.

 

[mobeyone]

Well, he paid £17540 I think at the time which is a lot of money for, well lets be honest a glorified toyota. the logbook clearly states, date of first reg: 2003 and then date of reg UK: 2004.

What has riled him and me is that the car was sold as a 2004 car i.e. made in 2004. The logbook states 2003 and this was never mentioned to him. If he wanted a car made in 2003, he would have bought a car made in 2003. he specifically went out looking for a car less than a year old and got in effect a two year old car when advertised as 1 year old.

I agree, the first buyer probably bought this very cheap. We were looking for a car for my brother and went into renault who told us they have a number of cars un registered they could sell.. cheap. Exact same as above but at least the guywas being honest with us unlike this lexus dealer. I would not like to be in his shoes tomorrow.

 

[Rory]

Well, he paid £17540 I think at the time which is a lot of money for, well lets be honest a glorified toyota. the logbook clearly states, date of first reg: 2003 and then date of reg UK: 2004.

If date of reg in UK is later than date of first reg then presumeably it's an import?
That's not good (for the cars value). Did he buy it from a Lexus dealer? Many franchise dealers don't like handling imports at all. I know that BMW require their dealers to mention it and I understand they'll refund people where they've omitted to tell them.

 

[mobeyone]

If date of reg in UK is later than date of first reg then presumeably it's an import?
That's not good (for the cars value). Did he buy it from a Lexus dealer? Many franchise dealers don't like handling imports at all. I know that BMW require their dealers to mention it and I understand they'll refund people where they've omitted to tell them.

Yep, one in the midlands i think and i too think its an import.. but we will see tomorrow.

I hope he gets a refund at the very least but it depends on wether they admit to this.

 

[Plodd]

Well, he paid £17540 I think at the time which is a lot of money for, well lets be honest a glorified toyota. the logbook clearly states, date of first reg: 2003 and then date of reg UK: 2004.

Something here doesn't sound right. The V5 logbook would state date of registration in the UK. If it wasn't a new car when registered in the UK it would state that it wouldn't state a 'date of first registration' if that registration was somewhere other than the UK it would just state that it wasn't a new car when registered. My V5 states under section 3 Special notes

Declared new at first registration.

I would be suprised if a Lexus dealership was selling a nearly new car which was an import. I would be even more suprised if they did this without telling the purchaser. All the info your friend needs can be found on the V5 registration document. If it was a new car at first registration it will say so. And by new I mean new as in never driven before. If it was a second hand import it will state this too.

If it states new at first registration then that is what it is and I shouldn't think your friend will have any comeback on the supplying dealer.

 

[GordonTarling]

I got caught in a similar fashion a few years ago when I bought a car described as a '1987 Volvo 740'. I eventually discovered that it was actually a 1986 car and had first been registered in 1986. I took the matter up with the local trading standards people who advised that it is perfectly legitimate to make such a statement, the car was a 1987 'model'. The dealer I bought from wasn't happy that I'd made a complaint, but he did prove to me that I'd paid a fair price for the car and also gave me a written undertaking to take the car back at '1987 car' price when I wanted to sell it. When I finally traded it in, I got such a good deal on my next car that I didn't bother taking him up on his offer.

What your pal can achieve in these circumstances really hinges around what proof he has that it was sold to him as a car that was first registered in 2004 rather than being a '2004 model'.

 

[mobeyone]

Update

Took the car to the dealer and his response.. i see your problem.

After 4 hours he was told it was a dvla error but should the car be a 2003 reg, then they will replace the car.

See what happens!