V5C - Former Keepers

[TheStarkFactor]

Hey,

If my V5C document states "3 former keepers" is that three former keepers including myself or three former keepers prior to myself?

 

[TheStarkFactor]

So if a dealer advertised a car as having "two former keepers" and I receive a V5C stating "three former keepers" then this is clearly false?

 

[TheStarkFactor]

If the dealer registered it then it would have had 2 previous owners. When you bought it, the dealer became the 3rd previous owner.

No, the dealer did not register the car, the previous keeper on the V5C is a private individual not linked to the garage.

I am trying to confirm whether the dealer misrepresented the car at point of sale.

The car was advertised as having "two former keepers" and I was told this at the point of sale.

The V5C has arrived today showing "three former keepers" which makes me the forth?

I've phoned the dealer and he is insisting I am the third keeper ... but I don't believe that is correct.

 

[TheStarkFactor]

3 previous owners + you = 4.

That's what I thought, thank you.

I guess it might be worth confirming with DVLA before confronting the dealer.

 

[TheStarkFactor]

Thanks for the replies.

Split opinion here I see.

The V5C will have shown "two former" keepers, prior to my purchase.

However this is not technically correct as the third owner of the vehicle is not captured on the V5C until the car is sold on.

So are we saying that you ignore the third owner of the car when advertising it?

 

[TheStarkFactor]

So the previous registered keeper was the 3rd owner, making it 2 previous keepers, he is now the 3rd previous keeper making you the 4th owner.

Okay, perhaps this is my misunderstanding then, I, like a few other people who I showed the advert to, thought that "two former keepers" described the full owner history of the vehicle.

I didn't realise the last owner was not included in that statement.

Oh well, live you learn!

Thanks for the input folks.

 

[TheStarkFactor]

Hey,

Long story short, within three days of buying the car, the engine management light came on, identified the fault as 'rear O2 sensor'. Car also having mild intermittent starting issues.

I tried to reject the car under SOGA, dealer was very apologetic but refused a refund and pushed to allow him the opportunity to fix and resolve all problems.

Spoke to a legal professional in my office who said technically I could reject but if went to court as the dealer is offering to provide a courtesy car and fix all problems then it may come across that I am being unreasonable to demand a refund.

I agreed to allow the dealer to fix the issue and the car is due in to the dealer shortly for the work.

It was only the other day when the V5C arrived and had "three former keepers" on it when I blew my top because it was clearly advertised, at least in my eyes, as having two previous owners/keepers.

Spoke to my legal representative again who said it could technically nullify our contract under the Misrepresentation Act 1976 and is contrary to the OFT Consumer Protection Regulations to mis-describe a vehicle. So I could therefore demand a full refund.

However, as pointed out on this thread, technically the car had two former keepers and a previous owner, it is the way the advert was worded.

One of my criteria when buying the car was two former owners or less. I wouldn't have bought it if it had three or more.

 

[TheStarkFactor]

Hey,

The V5C states three former keepers and the previous keeper is not the dealer and is obviously the individual who owned the car prior to myself.

 

[TheStarkFactor]

When a car is bought by a dealer (part exchange or bought at auction etc), the car is "put into trade" but they are not regarded as being a new keeper.

Did the dealer knowingly and deliberately mislead people by stating the wrong number of keepers or did the person putting the details on the advert just pull the info from the V5 blindly and without thinking? Who knows.

TBH, anyone that is really bothered about these things when buying the car should ask to see the V5 and MOT or even just confirm with the dealer by asking the question before buying the car rather than trying to solely blame the dealer.

People generally dont like car sales people and they think they are always trying to shaft them so, with this opinion, why people blindly go in and dont ask relevant questions is beyond me

The dealer and sales person in question is also the owner of the business.

They have 50 cars on their forecourt and have been established for over five years.

When I spoke to the dealer about the issue, I was told that it is completely normal and fair to state "two former keepers" on the advert because that is what is on the V5C.

I should have asked at the time of sale regarding the keepers, but we are all human and make minor mistakes. I wrongly assumed the advert was correct.

I guess its irrelevant now anyway as I won't be pursuing the matter with the dealer.

 

[TheStarkFactor]

I'll phone for some legal advice tonight and see what they think.

To be honest, I wouldn't be as annoyed if I hadn't also experienced problems with the motor after a couple of days.

Coupled with the fact the dealer is purposefully dragging their heels at every opportunity, even though they are making the right noises in terms of repairs.

 

[TheStarkFactor]

You won't get anywhere really as it's probably not considered a material issue plus you have no written proof they said it was a 2 former keeper car.

Plus 3 keepers or 4 keepers, is there much difference? It's not like they said it was 1 owner from new.

Agreed, unlikely it will get me far, but I do have proof, as I have copies of all three adverts posted by the dealer.

 

[TheStarkFactor]

What were you actually trying to gain anyway?

A refund.

 

[TheStarkFactor]

You want a refund on the entire car because they said it was a 3 owner car and it's actually a 4 owner car?

You mean you've changed your mind for other reasons and have spotted what you think is a way out. You are obviouly not fussy about low owner cars or you'd have walked from a 3 owner car. The difference between 3 and 4 is far smaller and far less significant than the difference between 1 and 2.

This is about principal as opposed to anything else.

As I already said earlier in the thread, the car has developed problems after a couple of days and the dealer has since been dragging their heels.

The V5C and former keeper issue was the final straw in the saga.

It has soured my experience of purchase and of the vehicle.

If there was an option to refund and start again with a more genuine and trustworthy dealer then I would take it.

In this case, it's not worth the fight, but it doesn't change the fact the dealer shouldn't advertise the car has having two former keepers, it's misleading, and I doubt I am the first or the last person to fall foul of this with the dealer.

 

[TheStarkFactor]

Its a used car and the issue has been identified as an O2 sensor which can fail without warning i.e. you cant really check them for wear and tear like brake pads.

In what way is the dealer dragging their heels? You stated they are willing to fix the problem and supply a courtesy car while they do this.

I am going to be blunt - you won't get a refund based on the owner history and trying to get a refund for something like the fault above won't happen until the dealer is given a chance to fix an UNFORESEEABLE FAULT with a USED CAR.

Even brand new cars can have faults.


I advise taking a step back from the situation, take a deep breath and come at it with the blinkers off.

Under SOGA I could have rejected the car for a full refund due to the fault occurring so soon after purchase.

The dealer does not need to be given an opportunity to fix the car if the vehicle suffers a serious fault or issue within a 'reasonable' timescale.

I only know that it is an O2 sensor because a friend has an OBDII connector and checked the fault code for me. Coupled with the the Engine Management Light is the intermittent and difficulty starting the vehicle. This often means it takes me around five to ten minutes to start the car, this to me, is not a minor fault.

Anyway, I chose not to reject the car under SOGA and allow the dealer the opportunity to fix the car as they made all the right noises.

Fast forward three weeks and my car still hasn't been looked at by the dealer. So that is what I mean by dragging their heels..... I think they are hoping I just go away.

The V5C was the final straw and again under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 I probably could pursue for a refund, but it would likely go to Court and who knows what the outcome would be, though my legal advice seem to suggest I have a good chance.

However, I am not prepared to go down that route because of the hassle involved. I don't need to take a step back, I'm not angry, merely frustrated and aware of my consumer rights.

Totally appreciate cars develop faults, not a fool, but three weeks later, no fix, no repair, I think I am pretty well within my rights to be frustrated and looking at options.

 

[TheStarkFactor]

No you couldn't - at least not without a lengthy court battle.

A failed sensor is not a serious fault.

10 minutes to start the car? This seems like it might be an exageration. Are you really sitting there constantly cranking it for 10 minutes at a time?

Disagree, at least in my previous experience and based on the advice I was given by solicitors in my office.

I'm not a mechanic, I don't know what is serious or not and at this stage neither does the dealer as they haven't even examined the car.

Also, no, let's not be silly, who would sit cranking over the car for ten minutes constantly?

I can try starting the car, several times and it can often take up to ten minutes before the car actually starts.

 

[TheStarkFactor]

If it's all so easy to reject it and you have received excellent legal advice from a solicitor why are you asking us instead of preparing for your court victory?

I didn't ask for any legal advice from anyone in this thread. I asked simply about former keepers on the V5C as per my OP.

I was merely responding to your comment about "not without a lengthy court battle".

Which is your opinion and one not shared by others with many years of consumer legal experience.

I lost the ability to reject the car when I accepted the dealer offer to repair the vehicle. Hence why I have no intention of rejecting the car under SOGA.

The OP was relating to misrepresentation, something completely different and as you quite rightly observed yourself, is misleading by the dealer to have said 'two former keepers'.

Also, why the sarcasm in your last post? Can you not engage in a discussion without coming across rude?