JXB

5 Month Refund

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

Have a legal related question, could do with some advice to see if we're being had over.

We sold a Range Rover to a customer from London, during the negotiation the sales person involved noted (on email) that the car was ULEV compliant.

5 months forward, the customer is trying to return the car for a full refund, noting 2 £12.50 charges they had received for driving in these ULEZ zones.

Now as the owner as added mileage to the car and depreciated its value, we were wondering what our legal options are with this.

Many thanks in advance,

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRA states that a car should be fit for a specific purpose. 

Customer specifically wanted Ulez compliant. If it isn’t and he was told it was, the car was missold. 

Having said that he has owned it for a long time. 

I would offer to buy it back at a lower price or a refund that takes into account the use, mileage and added owner. 

Before you do anything though check online if it is indeed non-ulez compliant. 

Edited by Nick M.K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all its the customers responsibility to check his /her running costs isn't it 

If you do buy it back , then its not a faulty car and I would offer trade money for the miles its done , 

Certainly not full refund , he also should have found out before 5 months too , so it could be buyers remorse , or expecting a free rental for a few months . 

Could always make the salesman buy it back , if he told them it was compliant . Would teach him to check next time . 

 

 

Edited by David Horgan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its time to get your boxing gloves on and fight this fooka!

 

more information required.... Even the far end of a fart description will suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nick M.K. said:

CRA states that a car should be fit for a specific purpose. 

Customer specifically wanted Ulez compliant. If it isn’t and he was told it was, the car was missold. 

Having said that he has owned it for a long time. 

I would offer to buy it back at a lower price or a refund that takes into account the use, mileage and added owner. 

Before you do anything though check online if it is indeed non-ulez compliant. 

I've double checked the ULEZ compliant vehicles and there are no Land Rover's that meet the criteria (not surprisingly)

8 minutes ago, David Horgan said:

First of all its the customers responsibility to check his /her running costs isn't it 

If you do buy it back , then its not a faulty car and I would offer trade money for the miles its done , 

Certainly not full refund , he also should have found out before 5 months too , so it could be buyers remorse , or expecting a free rental for a few months . 

Could always make the salesman buy it back , if he told them it was compliant . Would teach him to check next time . 

 

 

It's a customers responsibility to check tax, insurance etc so can't imagine why they wouldn't be checking if they could drive it in certain zones. Especially someone who lives in London!

We're thinking he's asked the question specifically for this reason, only costs him 25 quid in fines to cruise around in a Range Rover for 5 months and get a full refund? What a deal.

Honest mistake from sales person, you can guarantee it will never happen again thats for sure.

8 minutes ago, Stalker said:

Its time to get your boxing gloves on and fight this fooka!

 

more information required.... Even the far end of a fart description will suffice.

We havent responded to first email yet before we got some advice.

Its a Range Rover Sport with about 50k mileage on it - what makes the situation worse is the fact it was a sale or return vehicle and the former owners have already been paid out.

I think its a quick attempt at calling a dealers bluff personally but didn't know which side the letter of the law would support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the law is quite specific, as Nick says, if a customer highlights the need for the vehicle to serve a specific purpose (ie tow a certain caravan) and this need is not met, then they have been mis-sold. Will probably come down to paperwork.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there are compliant Range Rovers! 

Just need to be Euro 6 certified which means around 16 reg. How old was yours??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch. Just missed the cut. 

First ask your customer if they like the car and want to keep it for some “cashback”. 

You made a genuine mistake, you knew 16 reg was compliant and hope your cust will understand. 

If no then begin negotiating. 

In his email does it specifically say ULEZ or another word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His initial requirement read:

 

Hi, do you have the registration number of this car so that I can check if it is ULEZ compliant in London?

So he mentions he's going to check himself about ULEZ.

Our reply was "The car's registration is GJ15 XXX and is ULEZ compliant."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you (or someone that works for you) have told a customer the car is ULEZ compliant and it's not, you're on stony ground in my opinion. It's not as described, the CRA literally couldn't be any clearer and I'd say you'd have like, a 5% chance of success in front of a magistrate. 

I agree entirely with Nik, you need to start negotiations with this customer. There are times to dig your heels in, this isn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JXB said:

His initial requirement read:

 

Hi, do you have the registration number of this car so that I can check if it is ULEZ compliant in London?

So he mentions he's going to check himself about ULEZ.

Our reply was "The car's registration is GJ15 XXX and is ULEZ compliant."

I'd wriggle and try to get of it saying the registration was provided for you to check and satisfy your requirements that the vehicle met your needs.  

 

Ultimately if he kicks up enough stink your going to have to take it back and these cars have taken an absolute hammering in value over the last few months so your in for a hit. Try at all costs to keep him in it.    How often does he go into Ulez zone. £500 / £1k might be the best offer you can make financially to get out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EPV said:

If you (or someone that works for you) have told a customer the car is ULEZ compliant and it's not, you're on stony ground in my opinion. It's not as described, the CRA literally couldn't be any clearer and I'd say you'd have like, a 5% chance of success in front of a magistrate. 

I agree entirely with Nik, you need to start negotiations with this customer. There are times to dig your heels in, this isn't it.

Agree this is less than ideal but the fact its been left 5 months to sort is leaving a suspicious feeling about. We do things right and never tend to challenge scenarios like this, hence the reason I'm asking for some advice.

I think we'll look toward a cashback or negotiation on repurchase. Thanks for your help all.

1 minute ago, Rory RSC said:

I'd wriggle and try to get of it saying the registration was provided for you to check and satisfy your requirements that the vehicle met your needs.  

 

Ultimately if he kicks up enough stink your going to have to take it back and these cars have taken an absolute hammering in value over the last few months so your in for a hit. Try at all costs to keep him in it.    How often does he go into Ulez zone. £500 / £1k might be the best offer you can make financially to get out of it.

This is where I was at, but I didn't know where the law stood behind which party was responsible for the check

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JXB said:

Agree this is less than ideal but the fact its been left 5 months to sort is leaving a suspicious feeling about. We do things right and never tend to challenge scenarios like this, hence the reason I'm asking for some advice.

I think we'll look toward a cashback or negotiation on repurchase. Thanks for your help all.

This is where I was at, but I didn't know where the law stood behind which party was responsible for the check

 

It's not about who's responsible for checks, that is academic. The layman has asked the expert a question. The expert has given the wrong answer, the layman has taken the advice in good spirit and bought a product. That's all there is to it mate and all a judge will see. It's crap and a sign of the arse covering world we live in but men are no longer men and stand by their own decisions and responsibilities. 

The legal standpoint is clear, everything else is just down to how quickly and easily you can put this situation to bed and move on. Good luck.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The advice you have been given is spot on I think. 
 

I certainly wouldn’t just roll over and hand the customers money back. At the end of the day if you put up a bit of a fight your going to be no worse off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the actual reg? XXX seems too good :-) 

Edited by Nick M.K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be a good point to make here that unsurprisingly many London based dealers advertise their cars showing ULEZ compliance. It's a big deal round these parts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This got me checking my own diesel vehicle, registered April 2016, and is on a private plate. 

Decoding the VIN tells me that it is a 2016 Model Year Vehicle, yet the Vehicle Certification Agency website holds conflicting data. I can only find my vehicle by telling the site that it is a 2015 my vehicle. This gives different emmissions to my registration certificate. Both though say that it is Euro 6 compliant.

Transport For London say my vehicle is not compliant.

Whether this is due to the plate change or not I dont know, but it looks like agro to now sort this out, should I wish to drive into London.

Things are not as clear cut as they seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be trying to argue that the customer did not ask whether the vehicle was EXEMPT but whether it was COMPLIANT.Range Rovers are not prevented from entering the zone.Any dealer operating in another part of the country could make this mistake. Being in the north I could not reasonably be expected to understand the GLC ULEZ terminology for  ‘compliant’ as opposed to ‘exempt ‘.I think if the salesman had stated  ‘fully compliant ‘ that might be another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s easy enough to put a reg number in Govt’ Ulez Checker website and print off results, some diesel Minis 64 plate were Ulez compliant so don’t rule out any 15 plate without checking. September 15 onwards and they had to be EU6.

Agree with advice given above in this case, hopefully you can come to an agreement with the customer where he keeps car.

Mercedes were a nightmare for misinformation but that seems to have been resolved, many that were EU6 and showed as being EU5.

Best one I’ve had was a guy buying a GLA who asked me to prove it was EU6 which I did, then puts a private plate from his last car on and receives numerous fines. Dvla can’t work out how to get round that - frightening. Customer got hump so much he wants to trade in again - and that’s after we explained it was the plate and to revert to age related plate! Not fit for purpose 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JXB said:

Hi all,

Have a legal related question, could do with some advice to see if we're being had over.

We sold a Range Rover to a customer from London, during the negotiation the sales person involved noted (on email) that the car was ULEV compliant.

5 months forward, the customer is trying to return the car for a full refund, noting 2 £12.50 charges they had received for driving in these ULEZ zones.

Now as the owner as added mileage to the car and depreciated its value, we were wondering what our legal options are with this.

Many thanks in advance,

J.

I would be checking to see if it was compliant at the time of purchase, maybe the requirements have changed ? Also, if ULEZ was a specific requirement the he equally should have shown due diligence when he said he specifically said he wanted to check for himself....  JXB, also surely after he received his first fine he should have been contacting you stating the car wasn't fit for his specific purposes, when did he get the fines? If he's been driving around for months since the first fine and has now just made his complaint...... If that's the case then he's taking the piss.

Otherwise, as per Nik's post, its plain as day been miss-sold........ Offer him £500 to go away and see what happens.....

4 hours ago, JXB said:

His initial requirement read:

 

Hi, do you have the registration number of this car so that I can check if it is ULEZ compliant in London?

So he mentions he's going to check himself about ULEZ.

Our reply was "The car's registration is GJ15 XXX and is ULEZ compliant."

Also, this email isn't stating that he requires a ULEZ compliant vehicle, he's just asking if it is...................

Edited by Arfur Dealy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arfur Dealy said:

Also, this email isn't stating that he requires a ULEZ compliant vehicle, he's just asking if it is...................

Correct BUT he was told it “is ULEZ compliant”. It isn’t.

 

2 hours ago, trade vet said:

I might be trying to argue that the customer did not ask whether the vehicle was EXEMPT but whether it was COMPLIANT.

I think it’s worth trying to blag the customer but there’s no way this would stand if it went legal. 

It’s certainly worth trying to pay off the customer but if he’s having none of it then this a clear & brazen case of misrepresentation. No ifs or buts, it’s misrepresentation.

I’ll sum this up; Just another case of a secondhand car salesmen misleading a customer.

Edited by BHM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, BHM said:

Correct BUT he was told it “is ULEZ compliant”. It isn’t.

 

I think it’s worth trying to blag the customer but there’s no way this would stand if it went legal. 

It’s certainly worth trying to pay off the customer but if he’s having none of it then this a clear & brazen case of misrepresentation. No ifs or buts, it’s misrepresentation.

I’ll sum this up; Just another case of a secondhand car salesmen misleading a customer.

Agreed,but you cannot just roll over,you have to try and come up with something to limit the damage.Its a nightmare scenario and JXB is only looking for some creative alternative suggestions ( like AD’s ) than just refunding the customer.I hope he comes up with something.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the salesman say it was compliant?
(You’d have been better off if he’d ignored the question...as it is, he’s dropped you right in it by telling untruths) 

in your shoes, I wouldn’t let it escalate, the more it does, the more it’ll cost you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.