The consumer’s issue:
“In November 2019, I saw an advert for the sale of a used saloon for £10,795 on the dealership’s website. I called the number on the advert and put down a £1,000 deposit on 08th November. I offered to pay the full amount on the phone, but the customer service representative said I had to pay the outstanding balance at the dealership’s premises. I was also told that the deposit would mean that the car would be held for a period of seven days.
I said that I would come to the dealership on 09th November to sign the documents, and take the car away the following day (10th November). However, before arriving on 09th November, I called the showroom to let them know about my visit, and I was told that the car had been sold to a different customer at a higher price.
As the dealership already had my deposit, I would like the dealership to sell me a similar car for the price of £10,795 in order to resolve my complaint.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The vehicle was advertised at an incorrect price, and because an advert is an invitation to treat, it does not create a contract.
- As soon as the human error was identified, the customer was immediately informed of the issue and given first refusal to buy the car at the correct price.
- After considering the correct price of the vehicle, the customer withdrew from the purchase process.
- Therefore, the customer was provided with a full refund of their deposit.
- We would be happy to supply the consumer with another vehicle that meets their needs and budget at the current market value.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence and found that there was a breach of the Vehicle Sales Code by the business, as they had failed to provide the customer with the agreed vehicle at the agreed price.
- The adjudicator stated that an advert is an invitation to treat, which does not form a contract. However, once the customer placed a deposit on the vehicle, the business had agreed to provide the customer with a specific vehicle for £10,795.
- Since the business did not intend to fulfil its obligations under the sales contract due to human error by its staff, it is in breach of the sales contract.
- As such, the business would be required to place the customer back in the position they were in before the contract was formed i.e. providing the customer with a refund of their deposit. The dealership had taken the action required of them and the customer was not entitled to a further financial award, or a replacement car at the agreed price.
- Therefore, the business was found to be in breach of our Code, and the adjudicator directed the business to apologise for any inconvenience caused by their actions.
Conclusion:
- The business agreed with the adjudication outcome, but the customer did not respond. The case was closed.
