*sigh* more car buying woes

[SimonsMerc]

I think I'm going to ban all of my friends from buying cars without me. It's getting quite upsetting.

So a friend (a different friend to the one who bought the Passat I talked about in a previous post) bought a Mercedes Sprinter Van. It had 88k on the clock, was four years old, and was bought from a local trader for £10k. It looked in fairly good nick on the outside, and had a new MOT certificate. The trader provided an HPI check, gave them a receipt, and so on. All good so far.

They brought the paperwork over to my house today for me to help with arranging the insurance (many of my friends don't speak English very well, and I often help out with things like this). On a whim, I typed the MOT details into the Government's online MOT system...and bam. It turns out that nine months ago the car had a previous MOT, and the mileage at that point was 155k. Significantly more than currently displayed.

So of course I said to my friend that we'd go back to the trader tomorrow, write him a letter rejecting the car, and get his money back. And then I saw the receipt. Now, bear in mind that my friend doesn't speak English very well, and can't read it at all. The receipt says explicitly something like (quoting from memory) "the mileage stated has not been checked and so cannot be guaranteed". More than that, it had a set of checkboxes with an explicit signature, saying things like "I have not been told that the mileage is correct"! My friend was simply told "ok, sign here, here and here", so he did. The contract is a generic contract by a company called "Lawdata", who seem to specialise in protecting the motor trade from law suits. Not encouraging.

I phoned the local trading standards office, and I have been told to call back tomorrow, but it looks as though there is nothing they can do because the contract protects them from the Sale of Goods act. Bear in mind that the man at no time actually said that the miles were not guaranteed - only had the information on the contract. My friend doesn't read English, but even many people who do would probably not have taken notice of the information (and if they did they'd probably have been won over by "oh yeah, that's standard guv, the miles are fine but the legal folk make us put that in").

The police don't want to know about this kind of thing - we can't prove it's fraud, so they direct us to Trading Standards, who can do nothing. The HPI check is worthless, because the dealer arranged it; I had a long conversation with HPI on the phone, and they do not even have a process for reporting dealers who abuse their checks. So unless trading standards come up with something tomorrow, it looks like my friend has paid 10k for a car worth a maximum of 6.5k, with an unknown amount of miles.

The worst of it is, this van is a part of my friend's new business. They planned to convert it into a proper refrigerated van, for transporting cold meats at the right temperature from Poland to the UK. There are a number of other companies that do the same thing, but they often just have vacuum-packed items and transport them in uncooled vans; my friend plans on providing a higher quality of product, transported in the right conditions, and building up a base of customers who know that the meat has been correctly handled. I think it's a great idea, and that people will flock to it. What it means though is that he has to invest another 5k or so into the van to get it converted. So now he's left with a dilemma - invest in the van that's a lot more used than he thought, or try and get rid at a loss (and then take me along to buy a van).

*sigh*

-simon

 

[reflexboy]

very unlucky

 

[dougal74]

This is not good. Do traders not also need to stick a disclaimer notice over the mileage counter in the event that the mileage is unwarranted, I'm pretty sure they do? Does the HPI certificate not verify the mileage and offer a guarantee?
Without hearing the details it is difficult to comment but if the trader either did not disclose or misrepresented when asked directly about the mileage then this forms part of the contract of sale regardless of what disclaimers may have been signed later, indeed the disclaimers probably compound the fraud in this instance.
Is there no way of stopping the payment and holding it in Escrow or has too much time passed?
Very sorry for the chap concerned.

 

[Dieselman]

I know that the HPI check is worthless to the buyer unless they have it performed and pay for it, which is why I always opt for my own, however I can't understand haw the report performed hasn't picked up on the mileage discrepancy unless the dealer declared the mileage as over 155K.

I would have thought that trading Standards could ascertain the mileage the dealer purchased the van with from his original receipt and go from there.

A Sprinter ia capable of many more miles than 155K or so, so it probably makes sense to carry on with the original idea. I can't understand why your friend didn't just buy an already converted van, it will be cheaper than a conversion.

 

[SimonsMerc]

The dealer elected not to supply a mileage on the HPI check. The print-out from the check does not say "did not supply mileage", it simply doesn't mention the mileage at all.

Regarding the conversion, apparently a lot of the pre-converted vans do not meet some EU norm, and he wanted to get the conversion done properly by someone he trusts, to make sure that it won't break down with a van full of inventory.

Regarding the disclaimer, there was one stuck to the odometer, not obscuring it but on the side.

I think that the trader deliberately took advantage of my friend's lack of English knowledge, and misrepresented the mileage and lied. However, there is no physical proof of this, which is why the Police are not interested :-(

Thanks for your comments folks!

-simon

 

[Rory]

It's a bit sad, but, really, if you were in Poland (I'm assuming you can't speak/read Polish) would you sign a contract over there without some local help?

Could the contract be considered to be unfair?

 

[reflexboy]

Or.......................just kick ass and wave baseball bats around with absolutely no intention of hitting anyone with them (yeah right) and appear slightly mad, coupled with a flick knife in the other hand and a grenade behind your ear...Oh, sorry , maybe I was being a bit keen, but it does really hack me off when dealers (more than likely in this scenario) take the mick out of unsuspecting customers,and use the language barrier to his advantage. I really feel for your buddy.

 

[glojo]

I suppose it might depend on how far you want to push this, or how far Trading Standards are prepared to push. Here is a little snippet I have found, but you state you discovered a proof of a higher mileage from a previous MOT?

Have you thought about back tracking this vehicle?

Contact the previous owner and politely ask if they have any idea of the mileage when the vehicles was sold!

Who they sold it to and what was the mileage? It is an offence for a Trader to supply a vehicle with a false mileage. Is the disclaimer a legal cop out?

Good luck, and l endorse all of Dieselman's very valid points, including mileage and conversion costs.

Regards,
John

 

[fredfloggle]

Surpising this one - normally the Polish guys are as smart as mustard , with pretty good english skills .
I see both sides - unless you were there , you will never know what was said , or what happened . equally , the original owner may have given the van a haircut , you don't know and probably never will .
At the end of the day , unless it is a complete dog , then they may as well stick with it - I am not sure I believe the waffle about the conversion - it would cost a fortune to do properly , unless of course you have a knocked off van sat in a barn somewhere (forgive my cynicism) .

If I couldn't speak polish - then I wouldn't buy a vehicle in Poland without a damned good translator - these guys don't even know if the title is good . Not nice , but a lesson will be learned .

I understood that it was an offence to alter a clock , but not to zero it - though if zeroed , then this should be stated .

 

[Shude]

It is an offence for a Trader to supply a vehicle with a false mileage.

I understood that it was an offence to alter a clock , but not to zero it - though if zeroed , then this should be stated .

AFAIK it is only an offence to alter a vehicle's mileage record if the intention is to enhance the value.

 

[jaymanek]

you can set the mileage to what you like, as long as you dont lie about it if questioned...

 

[SimonsMerc]

Well, we turned up at the dealers today to "discuss" the situation (no, not with baseball bats ;-) We explained the situation, and passed along a letter which did the same.

On the 6th of November 2006, I purchased a Mercedes Sprinter, registration mark XX52XXX, VIN WDBXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, from yourselves at your premises address as above. I am writing to reject the car.

The car was advertised in AutoTrader as having just over 80000 miles. When I arrived, the odometer reading was 88029, eight thousand miles more than advertised, however I still decided to purchase the car.

Your sales representative did not explain verbally that the mileage should be considered incorrect. I do not speak English very well, and I am unable to read English; I made this very clear to your representative. He said that this was not a problem, and presented me with a contract to sign, pointing out where I should sign and explaining that this is a standard contact for purchasing a car, and that I should just sign it and be done with it. He explicitly said that I should not worry about anything because he had had the car HPI checked, and provided me with a print-out of the check.

Your representative initially did not want to give me an invoice at all. He took the form that I had signed, placed it into a folder and closed it. When I insisted that I need a document confirming that I had paid him the sum of ten thousand pounds, he added some information to the form, including ticking the boxes on the “customer certificate” section, and ordered me to sign again in the “customer certificate” section, without explaining what it was for or what the boxes mean.

Since purchasing, the car has stood on private land at my home address and has not been used. The current reading on the odometer is 88057 miles, which represents the distance form your premises to my home address. When looking over the paperwork today with my adviser, he noticed that the MOT certificate provided by yourselves had a higher odometer reading than is stated on the invoice. This inconsistency worried me, so I contacted the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. They advised me that the car had two registered MOT certificates issued under the MOT computerisation scheme, and that the mileage reading on the previous MOT, from the 30th of December 2005, was 150946 miles!

I have obtained a facsimile copy of the previous MOT from the originating garage, and it does indeed state 150946 miles. This previous MOT was issued less than nine months before the MOT which you gave us with the vehicle. It was not required; a copy of the previous still valid MOT could have been obtained for free from any MOT station. I believe that the only reason it was obtained was to show a lower mileage reading after the odometer had been wound back. In addition, it is obvious that the odometer has been wound back again after this new MOT, since the current reading on the odometer is some 141 miles less than that stated on the MOT.

You have failed in your duty of care as a motor vehicle trader to:

1. Confirm that the documented mileage on the paperwork you provided is consistent with the actual reading of the odometer, when it is obviously incorrect
2. Provide a current mileage reading to HPI when carrying out the HPI check, which would have discovered the huge discrepancy in the odometer reading
3. Check the MOT history of the vehicle, which is available for free, both over the internet and via the telephone from the DVLA, which would have shown the huge discrepancy in the odometer reading

In addition, you have deliberately abused my lack of reading skills to convince me to sign a document stating that you are not responsible for the mileage, without explaining that this is what the document says. When pushed to provide an invoice, your representative ticked boxes himself in the “customer certificate” section without explaining what they mean; indeed one of the marked statements is explicitly false, as there was no sticker adjacent to the mileage recorder on the vehicle to indicate that the recorded mileage must be considered incorrect.

At best, you are guilty of incompetence; at worst, of fraud. Either way, I am rejecting the car, and requesting a full refund of the monies I paid you (ten thousand pounds sterling in cash). The car will be available for collection from my home address, upon receipt of the money, at a pre-arranged time. A collection time should be requested in writing via recorded delivery to my company address above, and I will confirm whether or not the time suggested is suitable. My home address will be provided to you upon confirmation of a date and time. The time should be within normal banking hours, and the money in cash will be taken to and deposited in my local bank before you receive the keys to the vehicle.

I expect the money to be returned and the car to be collected within seven days of receipt of this letter, which will be delivered in person today, 25th of November 2006, with a copy sent by registered post to your address. If the money is not returned within seven days, I intend to claim my money back through the court system, by issuing a county court claim against you. In addition, I have taken advice from Trading Standards, who suggested that in this instance they would contact the police with a suspected matter of fraud. The Trading Standards representative I spoke to assures me that I have a strong case, and that they would be willing to help with this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you very soon.

Net result is that the dealer considered the situation and offered there and then to take the van back and return the money, either via a company cheque straight away or since my friend paid in cash, to refund in cash on Monday. So we'll be there on Monday after work, will return the van and hopefully get the money back.

Now, where can I buy a device to check for forged currency?

:bannana:

-simon

 

[jaymanek]

result... i would not have expected that! Most would politely tell you where to go as trading standards would not do too much about it after seeing the receipt...

 

[glojo]

Well done,
I thought the letter was very good but a bit 'heavy'. (It worked though, so it must be good )

What a pity you could not have resolved the issue in one sweep, as the trader now has time to rethink.

I respectfully disagree with jaymanek and it is my view the receipt does not allow anyone to alter the odometer. I hate with a vengeance 'cowboy' traders and have NO sympathy with them.

I am certainly curious as to how your friend can convert an ordinary box van into a 'kosher' (forgive my humour) chilled meat carrying vehicle. To do this properly will cost an absolute fortune. Still, that is another story.

Fingers crossed for you,
John

 

[Dieselman]

A good result and one which is obviously right.

I think this line may have well been the clincher in the decision.

When looking over the paperwork today with my adviser, he noticed that the MOT certificate provided by yourselves had a higher odometer reading than is stated on the invoice.

Along with a few other observation in your letter.

This letter must have had the dealer crapping themselves as it clearly dempnstrates that the dealer has clocked the van, not once but twice and has altered the paperwork after the sale was done.

Get the bank to check the cash and only release the vehicle when they are satisfied.
Also give a receipt so that if there are any questions relating to the cash or it's legitimacy then there is proof of where it came from.

I also suspect the dealer intended to wind off the extra 8k but realised they couldn't due to the MOT certificate.
You should refer this to TS and the Police AFTER the return of the vehicle.

 

[l5foye]

My understanding is that under money laundering laws, a dealer cannot accept £10000 in cash from a customer. When the van is returned and refund got, you should check this out with the police. It would be nice to see this dealer charged with an offence under the money laundering laws.

 

[SimonsMerc]

My understanding is that under money laundering laws, a dealer cannot accept £10000 in cash from a customer. When the van is returned and refund got, you should check this out with the police. It would be nice to see this dealer charged with an offence under the money laundering laws.

Hah, well on the invoice he explicitly put it in as £500 deposit and £9500. We were wondering why, now we know!

-simon

 

[Rob77]

Probably too late now but I'd have taken the cheque and released the van when it cleared. It used to be the case that you could pay a bank a sum of money to clear that day, I'm not sure if it's still the case but anyway ...

That would, at least, avoid the possibility that the dealer might rethink his decision and not provide a refund after all.

More importantly, the chap would then have two avenues when seeking redress: firstly under the original deal and secondly under the cheque rule. The cheque rule, effectively creates a second contract, on provision of the cheque and it would be fairly straightforward to pursue in court should the dealer elect to try and stop it.

 

[Flash]

Well done Simon.

I'm glad this "Trader" has backed down and will be refunding the money.

 

[jaymanek]

Hah, well on the invoice he explicitly put it in as £500 deposit and £9500. We were wondering why, now we know!

-simon

actually you cannot take over £9999.00 for any one deal... so it doesnt matter how he splits it up.. unless the deposit wasa cheque or something..