The consumer’s issue:
“I saw an advert for a used ’17-plate vehicle, which stated the mileage as being 487. I then test drove the car and decided to buy it. Shortly afterwards, I noticed that the mileage was vastly different at 6,357, and therefore approached the business to request a refund. They said that I was not entitled to one, but I am nevertheless looking for either a cash payment or to return the vehicle.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer purchased the vehicle for £12,700, which is in line with the industry-wide CAP valuation for the true mileage that the vehicle had covered.
- The letter that we sent to the customer contained a copy of the signed vehicle order form, which showed the actual mileage of 6,357.
- He also test drove the vehicle, giving him clear sight of the odometer, and at no point did he raise this as an issue.
- We have also provided a copy of the original e-mail the customer sent to our concerns department to The Motor Ombudsman, detailing that his original concern was in fact that he purchased the wrong vehicle by his own judgement. This was after viewing multiple vehicles prior to settling on the car in question.
- Taking all of these circumstances into account, we do not believe that the consumer has any grounds to reject the vehicle.
The adjudication outcome:
- The business’ advert does note the lower mileage, which in itself is a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Motor Industry Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales.
- However, this breach alone does not constitute a right to remedy.
- We cannot ignore the fact that the consumer drove the vehicle, that he had the chance to reasonably inspect it, and signed documents with the correct mileage on it.
- The impact of this is that had the consumer bought the vehicle based on the advert alone, and he had it delivered without prior sight of it, we would agree that a remedy would be due in this case.
- The consumer signed a document with the true mileage which is binding.
- The legal implication of a signature is that the signatory has read, understood and agreed with the information on the document.
- Despite there being a material breach of the Code, the adjudicator could not uphold the case on these grounds.
Conclusion:
- Whilst not satisfied with outcome, the consumer did not appeal The Motor Ombudsman’s adjudication outcome.
