The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a car from the business in September 2019, and at the time, I enquired about the number of previous owners. I was told that there was just one, and that I would be the second. However, when I received the logbook, I found out that I was in fact the third owner for a car that was just one and a half years old, so I had concerns. I complained to the business, and they confirmed they had made a mistake.
To resolve this complaint, I would like to be financially compensated to the sum of £2,000 for the depreciation associated with the increased number of owners, and because I would not have purchased the car had I known this information. The dealer has only offered £180 towards the cost of my car’s next service as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of the lower value if I was to sell the car.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer complained to us around a month after buying the vehicle and questioned why they were the third owner.
- We explained that the sales executive had read the former owner as one, and had not taken the current owner into account.
- We carried out an independent online valuation based on two or three owners, which revealed a difference of £180 that we offered to the customer as a contribution towards the cost of their vehicle’s next service. However, they declined this, as they were expecting £2,000, which we were unable to provide.
- The Motor Ombudsman mediator requested that we carried out another valuation, and this time, there was no difference in price. However, we agreed to up the amount to £250 as a cash offer.
- During the mediation process, we also found out that the customer had sold the car, and we questioned why we were not given the opportunity to buy the car back, as we would have provided the consumer with a favourable buy back price.
- After much discussion, the customer requested £1,100 to settle the matter, but we agreed to offer £350. However, the customer declined this sum, and the case was passed to an adjudicator.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator stated that, according to the Vehicle Sales Code, the business had an obligation to ensure that the customer is provided with information that may affect their decision to purchase. As the business confirmed that they had supplied the customer with incorrect details, this was seen as a breach of the Code.
- The adjudicator then considered what loss was suffered as a result of the additional previous owner, and it was concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the value of the car would be drastically impacted.
- The adjudicator did not find it reasonable to ask the business to reimburse the consumer £2,000, and found that the business’ offer of £350 was a reasonable sum.
- Though the complaint was upheld, no further recommendations were made to the business.
Conclusion:
- Both parties accepted The Motor Ombudsman’s adjudication outcome, and the business paid the customer the sum of £350. The case was then closed.
