Ex Hire cars

[trade vet 702]

I see there has been another case today,this time Robins and Day where they have been fined £5k for misdescribing an ex hire car to a punter as being one owner.If anyone has any Motorpoint shares,it might be a good idea to sell them. It could be good news for the rest of us if it is highlited in the media ,punters could be turned off nearly new stuff.......Any comments !

[Lakeside 94]

Yea I spotted this in the news a few weeks back. Apparently any dealer that’s sold an ex hire car as a one owner can be liable.

Que all the “we want any claim” companies jumping on this one.

[Lakeside 94]

I read it was hire cars as in Hertz, Avis, sixt etc as even though it’s one owner on the v5 they’ve been thrashed by many owners.

I think the problem is dealers selling them as “one owner” so three owners down the line won’t matter.

[grant8064 219]

Sounds fair to me.

We've got an ex-rental at the moment and I made a clear point of showing the prospective punter who seemed to admire the honesty. It's one i've been running as a lunch run car and tbf you would never know because the things a mintbox so they're not all bad eggs

[SuperLease 13]

Punters are kin numpties at times I mean what do they expect to happen to all the hire cars when they get de-fleeted? I bet theres more to these stories its more likely the cars developed a problem the dealers not handled it properly and the punters found any old angle to have a pop. 

[trade vet 702]

14 minutes ago, SuperLease said:

Punters are kin numpties at times I mean what do they expect to happen to all the hire cars when they get de-fleeted? I bet theres more to these stories its more likely the cars developed a problem the dealers not handled it properly and the punters found any old angle to have a pop. 

I think what has happened is that main dealers have been offering 6 month old 8k ex rental stuff as manufacturer approved ,one owner etc and charging top money which has caused the problem.While the likes of Motorpoint who sell them cheap could be badly effected as by rights they may now have to describe most of their stock as ex daily rental cars.On the other hand,late rental cars could now get a lot cheaper with lower monthly payments attracting punters who normaly buy 3/4 year old stuff ! It will be interesting to see what happens.

[umesh 336]

I think in this case with Robins and Day the main issue I see reading the article, the clutch went within a very short time had they done the 'right thing' and replaced the clutch, keep the customer happy this situation I feel would not have arisen, the fact that the dealer dug their heels in the customer then looked more into the car/history and decided they found a way to claim. The headlines do not portray the real issues ..yet again journalists sensationalising the situation!

It is a sad fact that ambulance chasers, PPI claim culture are jumping on the band wagon, only making our job difficult. Majority of the customers are happy with their purchases regardless of hire car or not.

 

[whitestone679231 113]

I think Umesh hit the nail on the head, keep the punters happy and you will be fine, piss them off and they will find any excuse to hurt you.

[metcars 397]

Just now, whitestone679231 said:

I think Umesh hit the nail on the head, keep the punters happy and you will be fine, piss them off and they will find any excuse to hurt you.

The problem is that try as hard as you like, 2018 customers see it as a challenge to find a way to 'discount' or 'be compensated' for just making a purchase. Not just in our industry but everywhere. Just look at some of the ridiculous claims made by people after visiting hotels or pubs. They'll make up complete lies in the hope that the retailer will fold and 'bung them'. When a punter is standing in front of you and happy with his purchase that's great, but when they get home and start talking to a mate who's been reading 'Monysavingexpertconsumercompensation.com" it all goes wrong!

[whitestone679231 113]

Just now, met said:

The problem is that try as hard as you like, 2018 customers see it as a challenge to find a way to 'discount' or 'be compensated' for just making a purchase. Not just in our industry but everywhere. Just look at some of the ridiculous claims made by people after visiting hotels or pubs. They'll make up complete lies in the hope that the retailer will fold and 'bung them'. When a punter is standing in front of you and happy with his purchase that's great, but when they get home and start talking to a mate who's been reading 'Monysavingexpertconsumercompensation.com" it all goes wrong!

That is true in todays blame culture, but if someone has spent big bucks with you (£10000) and feels clutch is slipping after a matter of days is it fair to bill them over £650 and expect them to roll over? I try my best to keep the punter sweet and although we don't know the full story I do have experience of being fobbed off by a kid in a suit at a main dealers and I know how pissed off I was when it happened.

[metcars 397]

Just now, whitestone679231 said:

That is true in todays blame culture, but if someone has spent big bucks with you (£10000) and feels clutch is slipping after a matter of days is it fair to bill them over £650 and expect them to roll over? I try my best to keep the punter sweet and although we don't know the full story I do have experience of being fobbed off by a kid in a suit at a main dealers and I know how pissed off I was when it happened.

Oh yes, that's correct. But all these false claims paint a darker picture. And that's the pic that the media feeds into. "dealer won't fix car" is a much sexier headline than "punter tries to rip dealer off"?

[trade vet 702]

Robins and Day were fined because of the way they described the car .From now on the ‘big guys’,can no longer describe these 6 month old ex hire cars as one owner,one company owner or give an impression that it has only had one main user as opposed to multiple users.They must now make it clear,that they are selling an ex hire car.I would imagine the first keepers name on the doc can no longer be recorded as an abbreviation disguising the name of the hire company.Disguising ex hire cars has gone on for years,I can recall buying late model Montegos ( remember them) ex hire cars and they were recorded as being owned by British Aerospace.Austin Rover was owned by British Aerospace and you could describe them as ex management cars .While  most of us on here don’t sell nearly new ex hire stuff,this ruling could be good news for us because the ‘big guys’ like Motorpoint could lose a lot of business.

[Dan W 57]

2 hours ago, trade vet said:

Robins and Day were fined because of the way they described the car .From now on the ‘big guys’,can no longer describe these 6 month old ex hire cars as one owner,one company owner or give an impression that it has only had one main user as opposed to multiple users.They must now make it clear,that they are selling an ex hire car.I would imagine the first keepers name on the doc can no longer be recorded as an abbreviation disguising the name of the hire company.Disguising ex hire cars has gone on for years,I can recall buying late model Montegos ( remember them) ex hire cars and they were recorded as being owned by British Aerospace.Austin Rover was owned by British Aerospace and you could describe them as ex management cars .While  most of us on here don’t sell nearly new ex hire stuff,this ruling could be good news for us because the ‘big guys’ like Motorpoint could lose a lot of business.

Sounds like Robins and Day basically lied about who had owned the car, I have seen a few garages who don't own up to who was on the v5 as an owner ie rent a cars and such.

We don't tend to get involved with these cars but on the rare case we do honesty always the best policy.

[David Ayers 171]

The main dealers/Motorpoint etc could of course put their name in the logbook so when the customer receives the V5 the first owner is no longer visible.

[have a word with the wife 299]

£5000 +£1000 compensation, pleaded guilty from the off, big company, dont care, next, they deserve it .........

my advice is describe your car very carefully not one very carefull owner from new, just "one owner ring for further details"

[LawJaw 50]

Earlier this month (January 2018) Gateshead Council’s Trading Standards Dept prosecuted a car dealer (not a Lawgistics client) for failing to point out that advertising a car with “one previous” owner amounted to an offence, when that previous owner turned out to be a well-known car hire firm.

The offence being one of materially misleading a prospective consumer such that it affected their transactional decision, contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). 

In other words – they may not have decided to buy (or even look at) the car had they known that it was once owned by a car hire company.  The same point could be made if it was previously owned by a taxi firm, leasing company, driving school or similar.

It follows on from a ruling in October 2017 from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that

 

“…if a dealer was aware that a vehicle was ex-fleet because it had previously been used for business purposes, then that was material information likely to influence a consumer’s decision to purchase it. Furthermore, if a dealer knew that such an ex-fleet vehicle was used by multiple users, then that too, was material information for consumers to make an informed decision.”

 

The key words are “if the dealer knew” or “was aware”.  Also “consumer” as CPRs do not include trade purchasers.

And these words can be crucial.  For we did have a Lawgistics client who was challenged by Trading Standards, looking to prosecute, on precisely the same grounds as the dealer prosecuted by Gateshead Trading Standards.  We stated however, that the name of the previous keeper was such that the dealer could not reasonably have known that it was a leasing company.  It may also have helped their case that the vehicle had only done 20,000 miles in the two years prior to sale by our client.  On this occasion their local Trading Standards took no formal action.

However, much media publicity has been made recently under the name of “Used Car Scandal”.  We urge motor dealers not to immediately fold if they are approached by a customer demanding compensation or if approached by Trading Standards.  They should contact their chosen legal advisor to ascertain whether they can dispute what is being alleged against the dealer.

Lawgistics have more than one ex-Trading Standards Officer, who regularly stand up for car dealers when faced with what may appear to be overwhelming evidence against them in the first instance. 

Reverting to the prosecution by Trading Standards in Gateshead, the dealership was fined £5000, ordered to pay costs of £500 and to give the consumer compensation £1000.  Note though that they pleaded guilty and, as such, the offences were not legally challenged in court, which we also believe to be important.

A spokes-person for the Council said; “It is extremely disappointing to find a main car dealership failing to provide its customers with this kind of information”.  Interesting, given that at the time of writing, the website of Gateshead Trading Standards tells businesses that “Applications for a Credit Licence must be made to the Office of Fair Trading”.  Omitting to mention that the OFT was abolished – in 2014!

But back to the serious side of things - car dealers must now make it clear in advertising if they are aware that they are selling a car that has been used either by multiple users (car hire / leasing) or for business purposes such as a driving school or taxi – even if it remains technically correct to say that they are “one previous owner”.

[Anglo9 26]

To be honest I don't know the fuss is about , I'd rather have a multi driver hire car than a one owner Motabilty stinky ,bogey ridden piece of crap any day of the week .

You know , just sayin'....