Undeclared Modifications Discovered

[Manxman]

You mean Credit Card company and Finance Company (if deposit paid by Credit Card company) not dealer.

'you may have a claim against the finance company and the dealer (jointly and severally) for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the dealer'.

Surely "a claim against the finance company and the dealer... " is 100% correct isn't it?

"s75(1) - If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor " [My bold for emphasis]

[echat11]

Surely "a claim against the finance company and the dealer... " is 100% correct isn't it?

"s75(1) - If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor " [My bold for emphasis]

If the OP had paid a deposit via Credit Card, then he could of made a Section 75 Claim.

That is what I'm stating. So no clarification needed.

[Pezza54]

I'm not sure S75 applies where the creditor is the owner
If the case went to court would the claimant sue the misrepresentor (dealer), or the car owner (finance company) or both (with two defendants)?
Easier and faster to raise a complaint with the FOS

[Guest]

Thanks again for the valuable advice, just to update I've sent the email to all parties requesting that my money is returned as it's mis-sold.

I'll update when I hear back :-)

[echat11]

I'm not sure S75 applies where the creditor is the owner
If the case went to court would the claimant sue the misrepresentor (dealer), or the car owner (finance company) or both (with two defendants)?
Easier and faster to raise a complaint with the FOS

S75 doesn't apply as no deposit paid (at all) via Credit Card.

[Guest]

I did also call the ombudsman and the automated line advised that I'd need to give them up to 8 weeks to resolve before they could look into it but that's at least the next step if I don't get a positive outcome from the dealership/broker/finance.

[Manxman]

If the OP had paid a deposit via Credit Card, then he could of made a Section 75 Claim.

That is what I'm stating. So no clarification needed.

Sorry but what you originally posted at #8 didn't make any sense and it still doesn't - especially in the context of a s75 claim...

Pezza54 had said - I think correctly - "You purchased the car using finance so, under CCA 1974, you may have a claim against the finance company and the dealer (jointly and severally) for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the dealer" [My bold for emphasis]

You then quoted him and posted at #8 what appeared to be a correction of what he'd said: "You mean Credit Card company and Finance Company (if deposit paid by Credit Card company) not dealer." [My bold for emphasis]

Perhaps you've expressed that poorly but the only meaning I can give to that sentence in the context of the thread is that you are telling pezza that they were wrong to suggest that the dealer has any liability. It's confusing and wrong for two reasons.

First, you seem to be substituting a credit card company for the dealer and the dealer's liability. This is confusing as there is no credit card involved and there is no "could of" (or "could've") here.

Second - and more importantly - the whole point of a claim under s75 is that a creditor is only liable to the consumer to the same extent (jointly and severally) as the supplier is also liable. So if you are saying that the dealer is not liable ("not dealer") then the finance company can't be liable either.

Pezza tried to query at #9 what you'd said at #8, but it seemed to go straight over your head: "I'm referring to Section 75."

[Manxman]

S75 doesn't apply as no deposit paid (at all) via Credit Card.

Ah. I see a pattern emerging...

Do you by any chance think that s75 only apples to credit cards...?

[echat11]

Sorry but what you originally posted at #8 didn't make any sense and it still doesn't - especially in the context of a s75 claim...

Pezza54 had said - I think correctly - "You purchased the car using finance so, under CCA 1974, you may have a claim against the finance company and the dealer (jointly and severally) for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the dealer" [My bold for emphasis]

You then quoted him and posted at #8 what appeared to be a correction of what he'd said: "You mean Credit Card company and Finance Company (if deposit paid by Credit Card company) not dealer." [My bold for emphasis]

Perhaps you've expressed that poorly but the only meaning I can give to that sentence in the context of the thread is that you are telling pezza that they were wrong to suggest that the dealer has any liability. It's confusing and wrong for two reasons.

First, you seem to be substituting a credit card company for the dealer and the dealer's liability. This is confusing as there is no credit card involved and there is no "could of" (or "could've") here.

Second - and more importantly - the whole point of a claim under s75 is that a creditor is only liable to the consumer to the same extent (jointly and severally) as the supplier is also liable. So if you are saying that the dealer is not liable ("not dealer") then the finance company can't be liable either.

Pezza tried to query at #9 what you'd said at #8, but it seemed to go straight over your head: "I'm referring to Section 75."

My posts are clear, I'm happy to go through them for you, but I'm not going to waste my time doing that.
Hopefully, you can 'understand' that or maybe you need it explaining.

[echat11]

Ah. I see a pattern emerging...

Do you by any chance think that s75 only apples to credit cards...?

I'm fairly sure it 'apples' to other things.

[Guest]

I've spoken with zuto yesterday and they've advised that they'd like to organise an independent inspection/engineer report with a company called ACE or similar.

My concern is that this wouldn't necessarily confirm when the remap was added which is the point they keep going back to, they're saying that they don't have evidence to show that the remap was there at the point of sale.

Would my conversation with the previous owner not being enough to show that it was modified prior to my purchase ? I feel like I'm being made the culprit to some extent and they've also advised that they could charge for mileage 25p or up to 55p per mile, which with the mileage I've done could be anything from £2500 to £5500 as I've done approximately 10k miles, doesn't seem very fair to me when the modifications were hidden and I'd effectively not been given a chance to reject it for the full refund.

Are they quoting consumer rights or does the misrepresentation act effectively cancel that ? I'm wondering if they can still charge that amount when the car was £7500 originally.

[Pezza54]

See my last sentence in post 3 about misrepresentation. Parties put back in their precontract position.
An email from the previous owner, proof of payment for the remapping and possibly willingness to be a witness in court. That would be v helpful.
The previous owner should have notified his insurance company after increasing the car's bhp. You could ask the owner if he still has details of his car insurance, and if he has, could he kindly forward them

[Guest]

Hi,

I just thought I'd update on this issue, they've received the report from the independent inspection today and it puts liability on the seller/dealership, it actually confirms everything that I need it to which is a surprise.

Zuto are sending it to the dealership and then I have to wait for their response/resolution,

Thanks again for the advice in here,

Brad.

[Pezza54]

Thanks for the update. Fingers crossed. Readers will be keen to know the outcome

[Guest]

I've discussed it with Zuto today and they've advised that they've given a deadline of 72 hours for the dealership to accept the rejection, they've also advised to me that the legislation states that the dealership can charge for usage/wear and tear.

I've advised that this shouldn't happen because the car should have never been sold in the first place with no DPF as it's a potential breach of the road traffic act and also misrepresentation but they seemed adamant that if the dealer was to accept the rejection that they could ask for deductions for usage.

This given the circumstances doesn't sound fair to me, is Zuto correct in what they're saying or would I be wrong to assume that I should get a full refund regardless ?