Car fault, dispute, shady legal consultancy and GDPR

[19CH84]

Bought a used car which developed a fault with 6 months of purchasing. The car is 10 years old with a little over 100 000 miles on the clock. The car is now a non starter.

I got 15 months warranty with the car but no garage has been willing to carry out warranty works due to bad experience with warranty companies. Also if warranty solution is sought, its in their policy that 50% contribution for repairs would need to be made since the car is over 10 years old. Also, if I paid for repairs and claimed cost back through warranty, I would be unable to claim back VAT. So this option is not reasonable to me.

My claim is that I wasn't given full disclosure of the cars condition at the time of purchase.

It came with a valid MOT but was never given a certificate, which I understand they are not obliged to do. However the finding were never disclosed to me.

The car was claimed to have undergone PDI checks. After the fault occurred, I requested proof 3 times before eventually getting evidence of this. However, this document did not bear my signature, but had actually been forged in an attempt to deceive me, committing identity fraud.

I have made several attempts to negotiate, offering to discuss through ADR company, as well as negotiate a contribution to the repairs.

The dealer has involved a legal consultancy business that is owned by a struck off solicitor who has been prohibited from acting as legal representation. I am unsure whether the car dealership is aware of this.

There are now major ethical and integrity concerns at play throughout this dispute.

the dealer agreed to take to car back for inspection but I raised concerns of over integrity, that any determination made by the dealer would be untrustworthy due to dishonest behaviour already at play. So I asked for either a third party to do the inspection or a for the option to get a second opinion.

As of yet, I haven't paid for diagnostics. The main reason being that I believed it is up to the dealer to provide this service under the consumer rights act.

My first query relates to GDPR

Since I have not given permission to the dealer to share my details, has he breached data protection and GDPR laws? As this business is not a soliciting firm providing legal representation, it is surely therefore a 3rd party business, isn't it?

Secondly, should I make the dealership aware of this information? Out of courtesy, I feel I should share this information since we are on the cusp of court proceedings and this consultancy firm is not going to attend because this struck off solicitor is prohibited from acting as legal representation in court. So I believe the dealership is either mislead or misinformed. I have read a Google review where it has indeed happened where a company expected this ex-solicitor to turn up to court and he never did, obviously because he couldn't, so they judge decided in favour of the claimant.

It's a moral dilemma, since not reporting it could work in my favour, as its likely no one will attend court. But it might also work in my favour since I have made further attempts to resolve the matter without a judge and showed good moral fibre.

What's your opinion?

[echat11]

Hi 19CH84

How much and how did you pay for the car?

If you think the struck off solicitor has been acting illegally, report him to the Law Society and Solicitors Regulatory Authority, tell them it's a matter of great importance.

[19CH84]

I paid £2695

We are days away before I escalate to final stage of lodging a small claims case.

I have emailed my concerns to The SRA.

I haven't dealt with the solicitor first hand, but an pffice representative who I believe responds under the guidence of the solicitor. I belive this because I cannot find the person I am dealing with the SRA register.

This person has already said that since I have now owned the car for over 6 months my rights have changed, however I spoke to CAB and they reassured me that because the fault was reported within 6 months of purchase my rights remain unchanged. So this is the only dodgy tactic I have experienced on behalf of the legal consultants.

I have reported in to consultancy to BBC watchdog and SRA, while my ongoing dispute has been raised Action Fraud for impersonating my identity to deceive others, trading standards and the Motor Ombudsman, though they have said the dealership isn't registered with them so they can't get involved but have provided me with proof I attempted to raise the matter with them and settle without involving a judge.

Seems like I have done all I can I guess. But my latest concern is obviously that my personal details have been shared with a 3rd party without my consent and that the individual in possession of my details is known for committing fraud. So if this is consultancy business, not a law firm, should they be in possession of my details without my authorisation?

[echat11]

You paid £2695, but was it cash, credit card, debit card etc?

[19CH84]

Debit card

[atticus]

What exactly is this former solicitor doing (that you have seen)?

The question is whether he is undertaking any 'regulated activities'.

[des8]

I'm sure we have come across him before on this forum
No reason not to name him and his organisation.(I'm guessing Malcolm Graham & Legalsolutions4you)

[19CH84]

Yep that's him. I haven't seen him do anything but doesn't sit right with me that a fraudster is in possession of my personal details and appears to be advising vicariously on my claim

[echat11]

You paid £2695, but was it cash, credit card, debit card etc?

If you paid by Credit Card, you could approach your card provider.

What you can do is contact the ICO on Monday, run the situation past them.

[des8]

Forget about the GDPR aspect.
Firstly there is a legal interest in the dealer seeking advice and passing over your personal information, and secondly even if there isn't what would you be claiming?
The man might be a convicted criminal, but he is (having served his punishment) allowed to operate a business.

Concentrate on your claim.

It bseems that you are claiming misrepresentation ( I wasn't given full disclosure of the cars condition at the time of purchase.)
What was not disclosed?

If however you are claiming the car was unsatisfactory at the time of delivery(as per Consumer Rights Act 2015), it is for you to prove it.
To do this you might need an independent engineer's report, which you will need to fund (at least initially)
Having made the complaint after one month since delivery you need to give the dealer at least one opportunity to attempt a repair, and it would be necessary therefor to allow him to examine the vehicle

[19CH84]

Relating to non disclosure...

Though the car had a valid MOT certificate, the findings were never disclosed at the time of purchase. The dealer claims PDI was completed prior to collection. I had never seen this report and after 3 requests during this dispute it was eventually sent with my signature forged on the document. I don't believe PDI checks were ever carried out.

There were 2 issues on the MOT, one of which seemed to be a reoccurring issue, which was oil leak (not excessive). With regards to my claim, the fault is that the engine locked up and oil leaked from car. I believe the fault to be linked with the issue found on the MOT. I don't believe it was resolved.

The second issue on the MOT was brakes. I had these replaced within the first month or so at my expense. I had no idea there were any issues with them until I heard them grinding. This wasnt detailed on the PDI check sent through either.

I asked the dealer to repair or replace the car and he categorically said no. I continued communications giving more opportunities to resolve it but he would not take the car back, not even offering to inspect it. It was only once LS4U got involved that he agreed to inspect it. I had concerns over the dealers integrity and raised this with LS4U in my response. I stated I was willing for the dealer to inspect the car, though I requesting he agreed to a second opinion based on my concerns over integrity, alternatively I go via a 3rd party. I also attempted to negotiate cost of recovery, out of courtesy for the inconvenience experienced. It took close to 2 weeks for a response by which point CAB advised me to move on to right to reject. So I did. It has been 3 weeks stuck at requesting repair or replacement and since he had already once said no, CAB said I should move to next stage to get things moving.

LS4U are saying I have yet to provide evidence of the faulty car, so it's going in for diagnostics on Monday to a local garage. I was apprehensive to do so before hand in case the dealer said I should of took it to him in the first instance, jeopardising my claim and secondly I was under the impression he should be providing this service since the car is less than six months old.

[des8]

So your claim is that the engine seized due to the oil leak.
The leak had been notified as an advisory on the MOT certificate, as it was not excessive.
The vehicle cost £2695, had in excess of 100,000 miles and is 10 years old
As the engine was leaking oil did you check the oil level regularly?

The dealer's failure to advise you of the oil leak might be considered a misleading omission under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Regulations Act 2008.
It could also be a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 depending on the description of the car.

You need to frame your claim correctly

[19CH84]

I didn't know the engine was leaking oil, I never noticed any leakage, but the issue appears several times in the cars MOT history, suggesting it was never resolved or underlying issue identified/rectified. I never got a warning light on my dashboard either.

I checked the oil level a couple times. I had no reason to suspect any issues until the fault occurred. I was returning home and had white smoke come out of the exhaust, then the engine cut out and has been locked ever since.

The dealer never disclosed to me the oil leak, nor the brakes issue. The PDI checks provided doesnt highlight any of these issues either. They only came to my attention when they presented themselves, as in brakes grinding and engine seizing.

Upon starting my claim, I checked the MOT and found these were raised in the MOT and I was never made aware of them prior to purchase.

I emailed the dealer prior to collection if the car was ready where he said 'all good'. All communications have been via email, so I have every word documented.

I saw the car advertised on ebay but bought it directly through dealer. EBay won't provide me with the original listing to see whether the MOT issues were disclosed on the advert. The listing gets removed after 90 days but would still be retrievable but they will only do this when instructed by police/courts.

In a way, I guess its both a misleading ommission and failure to provide accurate description.

They refused to offer repair/replacement when the fault developed within 6 months and it says in CRA that if a fault occurs within 6 months it's deemed to have been present at the time of sale. Looking at the MOT, it suggests the underlying issue was pre existing and not disclosed.

You've been really helpful by the way, thank you for your advice.

[des8]

You haven't yet had the vehicle examineed by an engineer, so are unaware of what has caused the problem ... it might not be the oil leak but perhaps a blown head gasket (white smoke = steam).
Have you checked the oil level since the breakdown?
The engine might be seized

[DE DOGS]

Lesson. if dealing through E Bay stick to them pay by Pay Pal hence two bites if things go wrong, not going to help in this case but you have thrown two chances away to get your money back without all the hassle. ""I saw the car advertised on eBay but bought it directly through the dealer"". The dealer would rub his hands together, no commission, no problems from E Bay, ""eBay won't provide me with the original listing to see whether the MOT issues were disclosed in the advert"".