Peter Simpson provides us with an insight into the automotive sales trading world – and beyond.
Naughty!
Overall, I think the used car trade has improved significantly in the 40+ years that I’ve been involved. In part this is down to tighter regulation, but another major factor is that by and large, today’s cars are better-made and more durable than those that were around 20 years ago. I’d also like to think that most of today’s traders are a bit more professional than was the norm back then.
Sometimes, however, one hears of a ‘rotten apple’ who really should not be involved in our industry at all, and Car Dealer magazine recently reported on one such who ended up with a criminal conviction and paying out over £6800 in fines, costs and compensation.
The Essex-based dealer sold a 2006/56 Nissan Pathfinder via Gumtree to a family in Dorset and, apparently, described it as a “Good, solid vehicle.”
However, when the buyers took it to their local garage for a post-purchase inspection, the garage apparently found that there was severe corrosion to the suspension, the handbrake didn’t work and the exhaust was leaking. So, they asked to return the car for a refund. But instead of taking the complaint seriously, the dealer claimed that it was a ‘trade sale’ – which it plainly wasn’t – and had been ‘sold as seen’ which a trader cannot do unless the sale is genuinely trade-to-trade.
The customer then contacted Dorset Council’s Trading Standards. They inspected the Pathfinder and then commissioned an independent report which, unsurprisingly, agreed with the unsafe vehicle verdict.
The next stage was, sadly, inevitable. Trading Standards charged the guy with not one but two criminal offences. The first, unsurprisingly, was selling an unroadworthy vehicle. Additionally, because he’d tried to evade his responsibilities by alleging a trade as seen sale, he was also charged with attempting to restrict the customer’s rights, a specific offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act. He pleaded guilty to both and was fined £1000 for the two offences and ordered to pay compensation of £3740 (presumably the price paid for the vehicle plus a few expenses) and the council’s prosecution costs of £2124.25.
So, a big bill plus a criminal record. I think, though, that the guy got off quite lightly. His only penalty was a financial one. There have been cases where similar offences have resulted in community service or even a suspended prison sentence.
A criminal record, however, still has significant implications, n
