The consumer’s issue:
“When I purchased this vehicle, I was not informed, either verbally or in writing, that the car had previously been a multi-user vehicle. Subsequently, I suffered significant financial losses when I came to sell it. Had I been aware of the car’s background, I would not have proceeded with the purchase. I am therefore seeking compensation of £2,239.92 in full and final settlement of my claim.”
The accredited business’ response:
- In summary, we dispute the customer’s claim, based on the fact that the purchase price paid by her was not reflective of it previously being a multi-user vehicle. Actually, the customer benefited to the sum of £1,150 because of its history.
- The consumer did not raise this as an issue prior to selling the car to an online trade reseller, and therefore did not give our company the opportunity to appraise her as to the benefit she had already gained from the reduced selling price.
- Not that it makes any difference to our conclusion, but the loss that the customer could argue she has actually suffered, is the difference between the price she agreed to sell her car to the trade reseller originally, and the price they reduced it by once they were aware of the previous owner. This was £866 and not the £2,239.92 that the customer claims she has suffered.
- The fact remains that the customer only paid the value of an ex-multi-user vehicle when she purchased the car from our company, so it was not mis-sold.
- Additionally, we had/have no control over the customer’s action to sell her car to a presumably profit-making organisation for a price which they have set, and which the customer accepted without any reference to our company.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator found that both parties were at fault. This is because the consumer should have given the business the opportunity to evaluate the car after she found out the vehicle was a multi user. This would have allowed the business to potentially buy back the vehicle or find another solution.
- The business on the other hand, should have told the customer that the car was a multi-user vehicle, regardless of the paid value.
- The adjudicator therefore partially upheld the case, and requested that the business awarded the consumer 50% of the £866 sum.
Conclusion:
- The customer and accredited business accepted the outcome as recommended by The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator, and the case was closed.
