The consumer’s issue:
A consumer was looking online for a vehicle to purchase. When doing so, they noticed a dealership’s website with a vehicle priced significantly lower than what would readily expected for the selected make and model – a difference in price equating to over £30,000. They therefore swiftly paid a reservation fee in a bid to secure the SUV.
However, soon after, the retailer contacted the customer to discuss the sale, and when doing so, it advised that an error in pricing had taken place, and therefore could not honour such a low cost.
As a result, the business returned the reservation fee to the consumer, and in doing so, the consumer was put back into the position they started off in. However, the vehicle owner was unhappy with this recourse, and as a resolution to their complaint, they expected the dealership to honour the lower advertised price or to provide compensation in light of its mistake.
The case outcome:
The Motor Ombudsman reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties, and explained that a reservation fee is not the same as a deposit, that it only secures a vehicle for the purpose of viewing, and that it is also not sufficient to create a contractual relationship which requires a business to proceed with the sale.
Although the business made a clear error in pricing in this particular case, it was not bound to provide the vehicle at the price that the consumer had seen online. Additionally, it was clear that the consumer realised that the vehicle was priced exceptionally low before placing the reservation fee.
Based on the facts of the dispute, the complaint was upheld in the consumer’s favour on the basis that the dealership’s advertisement was misleading. Furthermore, as the business had already taken the appropriate corrective action, i.e. returning the reservation fee, this put the consumer back into their original position, meaning no other awards were recommended.