Used car mileage discrepancy

The consumer’s issue:

“I purchased a used 70-plate crossover from a franchise dealership for £22,000 (with a £1,500 discount as I am a key worker) in June 2021 after seeing the car advertised online, and thinking that the car had around 3,000 miles on the clock. Before I bought the vehicle, I did test drive it, but only to see the state and condition of the car, and to get a feel for it. The paperwork for the vehicle showed the mileage that was stated on the online advert.

It was only on the journey home that I realised the odometer was showing a reading of 5,750 miles, plus the parcel shelf was also missing, so I rang both the manufacturer and the dealership to try to speak with the salesman who sold me the car. Due to the mileage discrepancy, I asked for new paperwork to be sent through, but I declined to sign it with the amended mileage.

I informed them of my rights to reject a vehicle, but as I was very busy with work, I did not have time to return the car or to look for another one, and by that stage, similar priced vehicles with low mileage were no longer available. The manager of the dealership responded by saying that they sold the car to me at a trade discount, and would be willing to take it back or that I could keep it, and they would cover the cost of a meal up to the value of £100 in full and final settlement.

Presented with these options, I decided to hang on to the car as there were no other suitable ones to buy, and so I initially accepted the £100 offer at the start of July 2021, and asked for the final piece of documentation that I was still waiting for – the warranty booklet, to be sent through. To this day I have not received a reply from the dealership or the manufacturer. Therefore, in light of this lack of communication, I am no longer interested in the £100 meal, and would like to be compensated properly for the mileage discrepancy, and for the undue stress caused to myself.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • We reviewed the customer’s complaint, and an agreement to the value of £100 was made.
  • We believe all we need to do is just settle this agreed goodwill.
  • As long as the customer is willing to close the complaint, we will contact them to provide the sum previously agreed.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence in relation to the dispute, which mainly consisted of an account of events by both parties, photos from the customer with regards to the mileage points, sales documentation, and the original advert.
  • From the information supplied, it was clear that the vehicle was advertised with a mileage of 3,000. In addition to this, the business also stated the same mileage on the invoice at the point of sale.
  • However, the adjudicator noted that there was also clear evidence that this was not the actual mileage at the point of sale.
  • Whilst he understood that the customer had the opportunity to test drive the vehicle, the standard principal of “as seen” did not apply in this case, as the dealership proceeded to state the incorrect mileage on the initial paperwork following the sale.
  • Furthermore, the additional paperwork sent to the customer amending the sales invoice and requesting the return of a signed copy after the customer had raised the error was established as an acknowledgement of their mistake during the sales process, and their attempt to rectify the situation.
  • The adjudicator therefore concluded that the business had breached the Vehicle Sales Code, as the car was mis-advertised and not as described at the point of sale. Therefore, the complaint was upheld in the customer’s favour.
  • The adjudicator also highlighted to the business that, despite the previous agreement of goodwill totalling £100, the fact there was a lack of communication and they had not honoured it, meant it was fair to award a more appropriate remedy in line with the customer’s rights.
  • The adjudicator detailed that, with the customer being a key worker, it would not be suitable to issue a refund of the vehicle, as it would leave them without a car. A replacement vehicle was also deemed not to be an appropriate remedy as this was not feasible to source.
  • The appropriate remedy in the case was a mileage discrepancy price reduction of the car, which resulted in a refund of £1,237.50 being awarded.
  • The business was also directed to issue the customer with an apology for their experience they had encountered.
  • Finally, the customer was reminded that The Motor Ombudsman does not compensate for losses that cannot be quantified or are not demonstrable.

Conclusion

  • Both the business and the customer accepted the adjudication outcome, and the refund was provided as directed. The case was then closed.