The consumer’s issue:
“In September 2021, I saw a used high-performance coupé being advertised by a dealership. The advert said that the vehicle had been registered in 2015, and came with a 65-plate and 85,000 miles on the clock, so I signed a contract based on these details. However, after waiting 10 weeks for the vehicle to arrive, it turned out the vehicle was actually registered in 2014, and carried a ‘64 registration number.
As a result of the vehicle being mis-advertised by the dealership, and the fact that the vehicle is older than I expected, I believe I am entitled to compensation in the form of a £4,750 discount.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We can confirm there was a typographical error within the advertisement, but the photographs of the vehicle clearly showed it was a 64-plate model.
- At no point during the sales process did the consumer state that they required a 2015 model year vehicle.
- That being said, the order form was revised to show the correct model year and the customer signed this in acceptance.
- When the matter was raised by the consumer in December 2021, we offered them the option of a full refund or £500 as a goodwill gesture if they retained the vehicle. However both options were declined.
- The goodwill offer is still available as a full and final settlement of the complaint raised.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator noted it was clear from the business’ response that they have acknowledged and accepted they mis-advertised the vehicle.
- He noted the photographs attached to the advert did clearly show a ‘64 registration. However, this did not excuse the dealership for providing false information in the advert.
- Whether intentional or not, the business did mis-advertise the vehicle, and this element of the complaint was upheld.
- The adjudicator then determined whether, despite the error, the business was still responsible for the consumer’s purchasing decision.
- During the handover of the vehicle, the consumer would have had an opportunity to inspect the car and the documentation that was being given. This meant that, at this stage, if there were any concerns that a reasonable person ought to have noticed, they should have been raised at this point.
- The adjudicator stated that the vehicle in the photographs, as well as in person, clearly had a 64-plate, indicating the vehicle did not have a 65-plate.
- In addition, the vehicle order form signed by the consumer clearly noted the vehicle was registered in December 2014 with a 64-plate. The information presented during the actual sale of the vehicle was explicitly clear this was not a 2015 car.
- The adjudicator commented that there were two possible explanations the consumer agreed to purchase the vehicle despite it obviously not being a 2014 model i.e. they accepted it was a 2014 model, or were negligent in their due diligence and failed to read the order form, agreeing to purchase the vehicle without reasonably inspecting the vehicle and its documents.
- In either case, the business cannot be held responsible for the consumer’s decision to purchase a vehicle that was clearly and correctly represented to them at the point of sale.
- Despite initially mis-advertising the vehicle, the consumer was not entitled to reject the vehicle or receive any form of partial refund for their purchasing decision.
- The business was therefore expected to apologise for the mis-advertisement of the vehicle in light of what had happened.
Conclusion
- The business accepted the findings. However, the consumer failed to respond within the allocated time and the case was closed.
