Car problems since purchase then found out car is Ex-Driving school

[mse]

Hi
bought a used 2013 reg car in jan 18, it was advertised online '1 owner from new', my husband and myself, went to see the car, purchased the car. The car was sold with remaining 7 years Manufacturer warranty, although car was advertised with 15 months free warranty, but cos car had remaining manufacturing warranty, dealer printed on invoice manufacturing warranty only.
after two weeks car started driving rough, found engine oil above Max level, booked diagnosed at Main dealer for 29th Jan, report came EGR valve & cooler damaged due to excess oil flow. warranty not valid and quoted repair price: £1300+.
Called car dealer, rejecting the car within 30days period, but dealer said first we will investigate, waited report from Main dealer, when reports came of overfow engine oil, egr, ec, the dealer still kept saying nothing wrong with car, the oil levels are correct, nothing to do with them, good luck, upon citing consumer laws, he said bring the car to their garage and they ll repair. My husband dropped the car at dealer and he kept the car for three weeks. then were told repaired done collected the car, was given receipt stating new EGR fitted, replaced 3 glow plugs and no more issues, correct engine oil etc.

then after few weeks in April, same shuddering issue started again, checked the engine oil, it was again above max level. so I thought of getting rid of car in May, car showed to a mechanic for valuation etc and he asked do you know this is Ex-driving school car. he showed me carpet holes on passenger side. I was bit shocked to see tore carpet and holes there.
I had copy of online advert, checked invoice also, could only see '1 previous owner', no mention of multiple people use/business use in advert or on invoice. I have attached snip from adverts, he has mentioned '1 owner' three times but no mention of business use. I think this misleading advertisement?

so raised both issues with dealer again. dealer again first hand rejected all, told me to get lost, but then again mentioning consumer laws, he said drop the car for inspection. again my husband dropped the car at his place on 26th May. He kept the car for three weeks. We had to hire another car for three weeks. dealer sent the car to Main Manufacturer dealer for diagnostics.
Dealer came back with letter citing "Without Legal Prejudice", no error found by Main Manufacturer dealer, We've previously replaced all x3 of the aged glow plugs and we have now had carry out a forced regeneration of your vehicle. hence, rejected my first issue saying nothing wrong. on 2nd issue, ex-driving school claim, although dealer said they were aware of the business use history and they did not disclose Ex-Driving school history in the advertisement but alleges "previous business use was discussed with your husband" and you have log book to check after sale in Jan, that concluded you were aware of the previous business use. rejecting this claims also. although my husband or myself has no memory of such discussions.

I was told to collect the car by 16th Jun else daily storage charges will kick in.

My husband went to collect the car 100 miles journey by train/bus, He was demanded to pay for diagnostic reports as dealer claimed, the oil levels are at correct level, no error found, hence customer must pay diagnostic charges, but dealer was not showing/providing any diagnostic report from Main Manufacturer dealer.
Dealer refused to show any evidence to support his claim. 'were asked, if you dnt agree with us and see you in court else dnt pay £54, then he must had to sign the letter under "Without Legal Prejudice" as final agreement. but no way dealer will show or give a copy of report to verify their claim, even we were paying £54.00 for diagnostic charges. Dealer demanded money for which produced no invoice, no receipt or forced regen confirmation as dealer alleges in letter. I am lost if dealer saying oil level was at correct level, nothing wrong why they performed 'forced regeneration'.

My husband were told he must not ask for invoice/receipt/reports, else he will throw out, police will be called, storage charges will apply if you do not take away the car today.
felt threatened, under duress my husband signed the letter citing "without Legal Prejudice" and told dealer I do not agree with their way of trade and contents of letter citing "Without Legal Prejudice".
and immediately arriving home, we sent emails to dealer again asking why he hadnt shown diagnostic reports if everything is correct with car?
in reply he saying he wont show us the reports as he is not obliged to do so, but if I go to court, he ll produce reports in court only! I asked him what he is trying to hide in the reports? but dealer saying go to court and will only speak to solicitor. I dnt understand if everything is fine with car why waste court's time on this issue? Not sure if forced regen has brought the oil level to correct or what else he has done as dealer wont show me.
Dealer has sent this letter with "Without Legal Prejudice", do these letters mean anything in court?
although, Dealer has mentioned of ombudsman.org, ADR in their website, but seems dealer is not affiliate to any motor ombudsman body.
I think dealer is in feeling that we wont go to court, hence dealer keep saying he will defend his business in court only, and he is not interested in ADR at all.

I raised issues with Citizen Advice and they have forwarded query to Trading Standards and have not heard anything back. awaiting their reply.
Citizen Advice again advised to use ADR or Motor Ombudsman like Trading body, but dealer is not interested at all?
Any advice on how to proceed pls?
Many thanks in advance.

[R0b]

Hello

You said that the car was advertised as having one owner from new but then you later go on to allege that the car had multiple owners. Can you clarify this point because you seem to be contradicting yourself. The fact that the car has been used as a learning car does not mean that the description in the advert as "one owner from new" means it is inaccurate or misleading if the driving instructor was the sole owner of the vehicle before it transferred to you.
Now that we know the vehicle has been previously used as a learning car, I would quite like to know what mileage the vehicle has covered, because if the car has done something like 85,000 miles then you must surely have accepted that the car isn't going to be running as if it only had 10,000 miles on the clock.

If without prejudice letter was signed under duress then the only way of setting that aside would be to go to court and get a judgment to that effect. In reality, the dealer is perfectly entitled to refuse ADR although strictly speaking he must tell you of an appropriate ADR Scheme and then confirm whether or not he is prepared to use ADR. He has obviously told you about the latter so I think the former is probably a minor issue at the moment and a technical breach but nonetheless made his intentions clear not to use ADR.

Ultimately, if you want to get this sorted, it sounds like you are going to have to go to court over it. If you are prepared to do that then your next step will be to send the dealer a letter before action and failure to respond or settle will then result in you issuing a claim. If you are not prepared to go all the way in the event the dealer ignores you or refuses to accept any settlement (which is the refund), then don't bother sending the letter before action - hollow threats are not helpful.

[des8]

Wouldn't the failure to inform potential purchasers of the vehicles past history be classified as a misleading commercial practice of omission by not including "the information which the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision" ?
(The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 Sec 6 (3) (a)

[R0b]

In the absence of any case law, I would say no and I would think that description the history as 1 owner from new is sufficient. It would be over the top to start describing the history of every owner of the vehicle "3 owners: boy racer, pensioner and young teenager".

I think it is sufficient to describe the history as the number of users and in this case the garage has specifically stated one owner from new. Taking that into account and if the mileage of the vehicle was substantially high given its age then that should signal alarm bells and pose the question, why is the mileage high for a car which is so many years old? The OP could have quite easily asked to review the documentation prior to the sale to ensure everything was as described although not fatal to a claim if they didn't but there didn't seem to be any suspicions from the OP's original post.

P.s. If I recall, it is misleading actions, not omissions that gives rise to civil redress for consumers. A misleading omission is actionable by Trading Standards only.

[mse]

Rob thanks for your help.
The problem here is dealer dnt want to show any proof to backup his claim that nothing is wrong! We went to collect the car when dealer said diagnostic report came fine. We expected that dealer will show some sort of report from main dealer etc. I sent specifically email before going there pls make sure there is copy of report to see when we collect the car tomorrow. He could had shown the evidence, instead he is saying he LL show report to court only! So either he is deliberately hiding something else why he would waste his time to go to court show the proofs that car has nothing wrong!

Secondly, the car has one business owner, but had multiple users. The dealer did not disclose in advertisement that the car had business use or car was an ex-driving school, even though dealer was aware of business use at that time as he claimed in his letter.he claimed it was enough to say this rather putting in advertisement or in invoice! But advertising standard says he must disclose this information in advertisement.

This is from trusted dealer website
Misleading Omissions:

• Failure to disclose existing faults on a vehicle.
• Failure to disclose the results of checks such as mileage discrepancies or a mechanical check.
• Omitting to declare that an ex-business vehicle has been used by multiple users such as a driving school or rental vehicle

https://www.trusteddealers.co.uk/nfd...n-regulations/

[Setmefree3]

Was the seller a used car approved dealer?

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...t-compensation

[des8]

Yes, breach of CPTUR 2008 is a criminal matter and proceedings would be upto enforcement authorities (Trading Standards)

IMO (contrariwise!) use of the vehicle should have been declared to prospective purchasers and not left to them to ferret it out., but unfortunately for OP
CRA 2015 does not include "omissions" in sec "Goods to be as described"

[mse]

@setme

[mse]

setmefree the dealer is independent dealer. I have submitted my query at ligitation site.

[mse]

des8, I raised the issue with citizens services, they said it has been reported to Trading Standards, but haven't heard back from TS.any idea how long they take to come back if they decided to look into it at all.

[des8]

You may never hear from them.
I have little faith in them when it comes to individual complaints.
I have the impression they tend to wait until they have received a number of complaints before they investigate any particular trader.