I think if it were me I would find an example car of a CR engined VRS from another dealer and then find out a new deal with part ex'ing your PD one. That will give you an example gap figure of what this is likely to cost you to correct their mistake.

You can then come to an agreement over this amount perhaps less the 'usage cost' they are refering to.

I also think that to an extent that it's irrelevant; you have a contract with them. Offer acceptance and consideration, and all that; they offered to sell you a CR VRS, you accepted, you paid up, they're obliged to honour the contract.

Strictly speaking, the OP has offered to buy a CR VRS for £X, which the dealer has accepted.

That's the way offer & acceptance works, it's actually backwards to what you think.

A price on a car is an offer to treat, in such that the dealer is offering you to come and offer to buy the car, not the other way around

(did lots of contract law at uni!)

Been watching this thread for a while, seems fairly open and shut really. You have a contract for them to supply a CR TDI for £X in exchange. They have not supplied what you agreed in the contract so it is a breach of contract, and technically goods are not fit for purpose (that purpose "being a common-rail engined car").

In this situation you are entitled to compensation which realistically can be a payout for compensation and you keep the current car, or they find supply you with the goods as stated in the contract.

The 4 months passing are largely irrelevant as any reduction in compensation due to this would be an unfair term as you are not expected to know the difference between the two engines and had a right to supplied with the goods you paid for.

As others have said, seek proper legal advise whether it be from CAB or a solicitor.

And good luck with it!

Edited 20 February, 200917 yr by Babs

how are they not within their rights to charge for the use of the car for 4 months?

Because the devaluation of the car was down to a mistake on their part and had they not made that mistake, then the devaluation would not have happened.

Not saying it will always go that way, but that is the logic I've heard of being used.

What to do, they are trying to play hard ball, and with all due respect to trading standards, I suggest you go and get a solicitor involved. I think most good ones will happily take this one as you have an invoice stating the goods you purchased and a vehicle which does not meet specification in the contractual agreement.

I'd just get a solicitor and let them deal with it. If they phone you tell them that unless they are willing to give you a full and unconditional refund on the purchase cost of the car then they should talk to your solicitor.

I'm not even sure you have to take the part ex back as depending on the contract often they make a contract to buy your old car at price X and then a contract to sell you a new car at price Y. They don't actually pay you X, and so as they owe you a debt, you only pay them Y-X and all is restored.

This is all understandably quite upsetting. Thing is that as many have advised - you really have to get a solicitor to deal with it - once they see that they are not dealing with Joe Public, but with a hardened professional, they will fold, especially in view of threatened adverse publicity.

I would guess that they have already obtained legal advice from a solicitor that they probably have used many times over the years:rolleyes:

Stick to your guns mate

Edited 20 February, 200917 yr by Basil

Strictly speaking, the OP has offered to buy a CR VRS for £X, which the dealer has accepted.

That's the way offer & acceptance works, it's actually backwards to what you think.

A price on a car is an offer to treat, in such that the dealer is offering you to come and offer to buy the car, not the other way around

(did lots of contract law at uni!)

Been watching this thread for a while, seems fairly open and shut really. You have a contract for them to supply a CR TDI for £X in exchange. They have not supplied what you agreed in the contract so it is a breach of contract, and technically goods are not fit for purpose (that purpose "being a common-rail engined car").

In this situation you are entitled to compensation which realistically can be a payout for compensation and you keep the current car, or they find supply you with the goods as stated in the contract.

The 4 months passing are largely irrelevant as any reduction in compensation due to this would be an unfair term as you are not expected to know the difference between the two engines and had a right to supplied with the goods you paid for.

As others have said, seek proper legal advise whether it be from CAB or a solicitor.

And good luck with it!

Sounds all pretty straight forward to me (my son quotes contract law to me too, having learnt it at Uni also; plus I've learnt a bit over the years).

As I have suggested before and as suggested above about time you seek proper legal advise whether it be from CAB, solicitor, AA or RAC, or via your car/house insurance.

One would assume the car is financed. If its HP then tell the finance company............... as its them that actually owns the car and has been mis-sold.

A phone call from the finance company would definatly go a long way...............

Steve

One would assume the car is financed. If its HP then tell the finance company............... as its them that actually owns the car and has been mis-sold.

A phone call from the finance company would definatly go a long way...............

Steve

Very valid point; is the car on finance or did you pay the balance between purchase price and PX in 'cash'?

I am going to look at it from the dealer point of view.

The dealer (car supermarket, not skoda dealer) purchased the car from lets say an auction, the car may have gone through the auction as a CR diesel. The dealer purchases said car, believing it to be a CR. The CR engine is quiet new, so they may have also been none the wiser to what they have purchased and also believed it to be CR and not PD because this is how the car was sold to them.

They sell the car as a CR engined vRS because this is what they were told it was, and the OP buys it believing the same thing but since discovered otherwise.

Whats happening now, following contact from the OP is that the dealer has basicly agreed to what the OP has requested in that they are going to declare the deal null and void. Unfortunatly for the OP they still have his P/ex on their forcourt.

The dealer has said that they will return the OPs car which he p/ex'd 4 months ago, this car will now have been idle for 4 months and have no additional mileage and when returned the V5 will be as before with no additional keepers. The dealer just needs to notify the DVLA that the car has been returned to the previous keeper and a new complete V5 will be issued back to the OP.

At the same time the dealer will take back the car which was sold to him 4 months previously with 3,700 miles more on the clock, and will show one additional owner and could well be due a service now due to the additional mileage. Other work may also be needed to return the car back to a saleable condition, hence the deduction in money refunded to the OP. This will mean that he has in effect been renting the car for the last 4 months.

What the OP will most likely end up with at the end of the day, is his old car back which is now 4 months older and worth less than it was when it was originally P Ex'd and less money that he had 4 months ago when he bought the car.

In reality the dealer is hoping that this outlook will lead to everything being dropped and the op retains the current PD vRS, although they might take the opportunity to punt back the p/ex which they have been unable to sell for 4 months and get something back they can easily sell again but for less money than the OP originally paid.

As has been said before , this needs proper legal advice and not a bunch of people on the internet saying what they think should happen.

Courts tend to be relatively sensible places , despite what you may read in the papers , and as the mistake is entirely that of the dealer then with a good solicitor on the case it's likely that they will be expected to stand the loss in value of the car.

It sounds very much like they are trying to scare the OP into dropping the matter

I am going to look at it from the dealer point of view.

The dealer (car supermarket, not skoda dealer) purchased the car from lets say an auction, the car may have gone through the auction as a CR diesel. The dealer purchases said car, believing it to be a CR. The CR engine is quiet new, so they may have also been none the wiser to what they have purchased and also believed it to be CR and not PD because this is how the car was sold to them.

Regardless of whether the mis-selling is intentional or not, the dealer has a duty of care to not mis-sell.

They have mis-sold and the consumer has rights under contract law. A solicitor will be able to explain these rights and if not they will be able to get an advice from a barrister which will give them a very good idea of how it might go in court.

Regardless of whether the mis-selling is intentional or not, the dealer has a duty of care to not mis-sell.

They have mis-sold and the consumer has rights under contract law. A solicitor will be able to explain these rights and if not they will be able to get an advice from a barrister which will give them a very good idea of how it might go in court.

Hit in right on the nail there

It's a very simple case (at least, based on the facts imparted on this thread).

In Australia we call a lot of the posts above as "Bush Lawyering". As in many things in life, you often get what you pay for - in this case you have paid nothing, but nevertheless have been given excellent advice many times - to wit :

Get qualified, professional advice from a lawyer experienced in these sorts of contracts. Then act upon it.

Any other course of action is foolhardy. You can be sure your vendor has someone experienced working for them.

In Australia we call a lot of the posts above as "Bush Lawyering". As in many things in life, you often get what you pay for - in this case you have paid nothing, but nevertheless have been given excellent advice many times - to wit :

Get qualified, professional advice from a lawyer experienced in these sorts of contracts. Then act upon it.

Any other course of action is foolhardy. You can be sure your vendor has someone experienced working for them.

I totally agree.

If (by any chance) you've paid for the car with a credit card, check with the provider regarding potential advice as part of the financial service.

I am going to look at it from the dealer point of view.

The dealer (car supermarket, not skoda dealer) purchased the car from lets say an auction, the car may have gone through the auction as a CR diesel. The dealer purchases said car, believing it to be a CR. The CR engine is quiet new, so they may have also been none the wiser to what they have purchased and also believed it to be CR and not PD because this is how the car was sold to them.

In which case the dealer could counter-sue the supplying auction to recover their losses - this doesn't get them out of any responsibility.

BUT, most auctions have a policy that the vehicle is 'sold as seen', and it is up to the purchaser (in this case the car supermarket) to check that the spec is correct.

The OP should definitely seek proper advice, but I would suggest that the use of the car for 4 months is largely irrelevant.

Update to my many advisors, and again, I thank you all for your valid comments, and yes, I am see a solicitor next week:-

The general manager called today and offered my old car back (which they paid 11k for), and a refund minus 2k for the use of the skoda for 4 months. He based it on the fact that they had contacted Trading Standards themselves and agreed that a fair amount for "using" the car would be £500 per month (after all, thats only £16 per day and you wouldn't even get a fiesta for that). How jolly kind of him !!!

You can guess what I told him to do and where to shove that offer.

He basically wants me to accept a car back that is now 4 months older, and pay for the use of the skoda. To me, that means I am paying twice, if I use my old car as part ex now, then I'm likely to get around 9K, and would have to raise a further 2K to cover my loss on so called "Renting" his skoda, meaning I am down around 4K to get back to where I thought I was.

The only other offer he could come up with was compensation based on the price difference in his so called book, between the PD and CR. i.e. he is willing to offer me £150 and absolutely no more.

p.s. He would not put anything in writing until I agreed which offer I was taking up.

Again, thanks for all your comments, and again, keep them coming

p.p.s He also says he/company are members of the trading standards committee or whatever, for that area...

G

well done

p.p.s He also says he/company are members of the trading standards committee or whatever, for that area...

G

I think he is trying it on again.

I'd thank him for his offers and tell him you would like them in writing so you can pass them on to your solicitors.

See what he does then.

Have fun and good luck with the solicitors.

If He told you that the car you purchased from him is something it is not, surely that could be seen as Fraud.

No expert don't all shoot me down at once.

I think a very well written letter from a solicitor will change there mind. your right not to except his deal

The price difference between a PD and CR engined version of your Octy is how much? I mean Skoda list price?

I worked in the animal health side of trading standards up until 3 years ago although not Consumer Protection did work along side them in what was a small department,I do not think for a minute that they will be a member of a trading standards committe perhaps a local government licenced motor trader but that will be all. As for charging you for 4 months use of a Skoda have they not had the pleasure of your car for 4 months so you could invoice them for that.

I would go with a previous piece of advice and contact watchdog it may make good tv which is what will be of interest to the BBC rather than helping out.

The general manager called today and offered my old car back (which they paid 11k for), and a refund minus 2k for the use of the skoda for 4 months. He based it on the fact that they had contacted Trading Standards themselves and agreed that a fair amount for "using" the car would be £500 per month (after all, thats only £16 per day and you wouldn't even get a fiesta for that). How jolly kind of him !!!

On that basis he should be paying you the same for "using" your car for two months.

The price difference between a PD and CR engined version of your Octy is how much? I mean Skoda list price?

The CR was actually about £35 cheaper at it's introduction.

If the car was advertised as a CR, and that was the basis you bought the car on, they have misrepresented the car, and sold it under false pretences, regardless of what the differential is between a PD and a CR - to then attempt to charge you £500 a month for using it, when they have brought about the error seems little short of scandalous.

I would suggest seeing a solicitor to ask them to write an initial letter on your behalf, which should not cost a great deal, and might be enough to suggest to them that you mean business.

Have you considered bringing it to the attention of What Car as well - they often print articles about similar problems, and might be able to give some assistance as to where you stand.

I can't imagine that any Trading Standards body would have a member who themselves might be prime cannon fodder for the matters they deal with - that, in itself, might amount to a false representation, attempting to put pressure on you not to take the matter any further.

Will look forward to the outcome with interest - keep us posted - and make sure everyone gets to know which car supermarket it is so we can avoid them !

Good luck

The CR was actually about £35 cheaper at it's introduction.

At the end of the day, it's not really just down to figures, and whether or not you might be able to live with what you've got, it's about getting the vehicle that was advertised, and the vehicle you went in to buy.

If I'd bought my car because I wanted the CR engine, I'd be pretty p*ssed if I didn't get a CR engine, regardless of whether or not the PD might perform as well as the CR.

At the end of the day, it's not really just down to figures, and whether or not you might be able to live with what you've got, it's about getting the vehicle that was advertised, and the vehicle you went in to buy.

If I'd bought my car because I wanted the CR engine, I'd be pretty p*ssed if I didn't get a CR engine, regardless of whether or not the PD might perform as well as the CR.

I agree, I simply replied to the question asked :P