Hatchback price discrepancy

The consumer’s issue:

In October 2023, a consumer saw an online advertisement for a used 22-plate hatchback with 7,000 miles on the clock, for less than £2,500. When the customer called the business to proceed with the purchase, they confirmed the price on numerous occasions without this being refuted, and the individual went ahead with buying the car at the agreed cost.

When the time arrived for the consumer to collect the vehicle a few days later, they received a telephone call from the retailer, advising that an error had been made with regards to the price of the vehicle, and that it should have in fact, been closer to the £25,000 mark. The seller therefore explained that the previously agreed cost could not be honoured.

The customer was disappointed with this outcome, and did not think it was fair that they should penalised for the seller’s mistake. To resolve their dispute, the consumer was looking for the business to honour the initial advertised price.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties, and pointed out that it could reasonably be seen from the age and mileage of the vehicle, that the advertised priced was, on the balance of probabilities, not correct.

The adjudicator explained what “as described” meant in the eyes of the law in relation to the Consumer Rights Act, stating that goods supplied must match any description given to customers, or any models or samples shown to them at the time of purchase. In addition to the above, the adjudicator reviewed the retailer’s terms and conditions online and what it reasonably expected to occur in the event that incorrect information was advertised.

Even though the business subsequently confirmed the correct price, refunded the money to the customer, and apologised for what had happened, the adjudicator still upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour, as there was sufficient evidence to reasonably demonstrate that the business was in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.

However, no award was given to the customer, as the business did what the adjudicator would have reasonably expected, which was to refund the money, and formally apologise. Furthermore, the manner in which the dispute was handled, was in line with the business’s own terms and conditions.