Mis represented - Car turns out to be ex hire

[MEGTHEBEAGLE]

Hi All.

I was wondering if you could help me with a little problem. Feeling slightly foolish. I took a car sales man at his word....

I recently bought a Nissan "cared4" vehicle from a main dealer which had just arrived in. I did actually see it being off loaded. It was a Nissan ex management car, same thing told to both my husband and I.

We agreed a deal, took the car, everyones happy.

Until the V5 came through the post a couple of weeks later and its an Ex hertz car. I did actually ask to look at the V5 when I went in to sign the paperwork but was told it had been sent off when the tax disc was purchased....

Now I quite like my cars and for many reasons would never have touched an ex-hire car. It could run fine I agree but also it could be riddled with problems further down the line and I now have the problem of getting shut of an ex hire car further down the line.....

I have raised a dispute. They first said oh its not - its been hired back to Nissan for "sales" "you have my word"

Well im sorry but your word has so far got me a car that has ex hire stamped all over it so you'll have to forgive me for wanting more.

I've requested proof from head office of the history of the car (i'm not expecting it, I feel its a tall story!) Or failing that, that I want a replacement car which matches what they said they was selling me or a refund.

From what I've researched, trading standards have investigated main dealers and practices in 2009 but nothing concrete on what the outcome was.

I guess i'm wondering how far I can take this?

They have emailed today to say they have asked Nissan for information and hes now off till Monday but will get back to us then. His main argument seems to be he doesn't understand why we are bothered its an exhire car!

Sorry for the ramble. I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this.

[MissFM]

Re: Mis represented - Car turns out to be ex hire

Hello Megthebeagle and welcome to Legalbeagles

A fount of wisdom will be along soon.

Out of curiosity, what is your specific worry about ex-hire cars?

[MEGTHEBEAGLE]

Re: Mis represented - Car turns out to be ex hire

Hello Megthebeagle and welcome to Legalbeagles

A fount of wisdom will be along soon.

Out of curiosity, what is your specific worry about ex-hire cars?

Hi

Thanks for the welcome.

Often hire cars are not treated very well. Due to the many different driving styles they will have been driven with, and driven unsympathetically, there is a high chance of accelerated (excuse the pun!) wear and tear on key car parts. The car in question I have bought has a turbo which can be quite affected by incorrect driving, not allowing it to warm sufficiently before pushing on etc. He tried using but you have warranty, but only for two of the three years.

You also will find that in most cases when you sell on a car to a trader, you will have to sign a statement that the car has not been used as a hire car / taxi etc etc. Having never had one i dont know what odds this will make but i'm sure it will be a price beating stick!

They were specifically asked the owner history of the car and said nissan ex management car and not Hertz.

I'm quite liking the name of this forum. I have a beagle puppy at home (she does like the car ha ha) :beagle:

[bluebottle]

Re: Mis represented - Car turns out to be ex hire

I'd speak to your local Trading Standards Department about your local Nissan dealer's statement. Apart from being very naughty, there may be a breach of the law by them doing so. If the dealer's statement resulted in you paying more than you would have paid, had you known it was an ex-hire car, then all the more reason for speaking to Trading Standards.

[labman]

Re: Mis represented - Car turns out to be ex hire

Have they actually put it in writing that it was a Nissan ex-management car?

Was it advertised anywhere - their website, local paper, autotrader etc....? If so have you got a copy of the advertisement?

I quite agree on the possibility of parts wearing out further down the line, and Murphy's Law dictates it will be just after the warranty has expired. I'd be concerned as you are. The issue is getting concrete proof it was not as described to you. You do have protection under the Sales of Goods Act as you'll know.

Have you seen this?

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/

:beagle:

[Inca]

Re: Mis represented - Car turns out to be ex hire

Hi Meg
I'd be pretty hacked off as well...you have (nor can the car company have) any idea of how the car was treated during it's rental days (not very well by some I would imagine) but that's not the real point here is it?
The real point is noone told you it was ex hire so therefore gave you no reason to doubt it's history and that's wrong,, I don't know where you stand legally,I leave that to the clever bods on here but I totally get why you're peeved..cos I would be too.

Hope you get this sorted,

[des8]

Re: Mis represented - Car turns out to be ex hire

IMO Misrepresentation Act 1967 comes into play.
If it comes to it courts are more likely to take the claimants word than the sales team in a case like this< especially as the sales are now suggesting it makes no difference if the vehicle is ex hire. Have many of your communications been in writing? If not confirm to them in writing what your concerns are, and send "signed for". Better to get paper trial in place sooner than later