car did not have full service history as advertised

[MARTIN3030]

Yes we are forgetting that the claimants letter WILL obviously be biased-it does not really tally with what the defendant maintains does it ?

[sailor sam]

the only difference between the service books is that it is uk edition instead of european which was originally sent.

the fact remains that the book is incomplete and the advert stated FULL DEALER SERVICE HISTORY. this is what the buyer thought he was getting.

volvo have confirmed that the car has not got FULL DEALER SERVICE HISTORY and are going to put it in writing.

also the letter he has sent is true isnt it????????????? especially the phone call bit. thank god for voice mail.

 

 

the invoice/contract is unsigned by the buyer????????????????????

 

If Volvo provide this in writing then it proves the 'dealer who did the service' (indicated in the letter) has commited an offence by stamping a service book saying a service has been done when it hasn't. I'm sure Volve will be very interested in this if true. Also, if you can provide this written eveidence from Volvo, then obviously it will make a difference. Lets hope it arrives before the time to submit your defence expires.

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[hunterandthehunted]

If Volvo provide this in writing then it proves the 'dealer who did the service' (indicated in the letter) has commited an offence by stamping a service book saying a service has been done when it hasn't. I'm sure Volve will be very interested in this if true. Also, if you can provide this written eveidence from Volvo, then obviously it will make a difference. Lets hope it arrives before the time to submit your defence expires.

 

sam i think you have misunderstood,

nobody is disputing that the car was not serviced 4 times as per service book. but to qualify for FULL dealer history it should have been serviced 6 times at 12500 intervals. this we know now as volvos policy.

the dealer we suspect new this along but he is not going to admit this, is he?,

 

a question

isnt the dealer obliged to be regulated by or be governed by industry codes of practise?

[heliosuk]

Does the invoice/contract have anything written on it in relation to the service book and full dealer history?

 

You need to check with Martin as well as his suggested letter refers to full service history as opposed to full dealer service history. This can make a significant difference.

 

Still think your friend is on unsteady ground unfortunatly because as pointed out it was accepted that the history was as it is at the point of sale, something the dealer is making quite clear.

 

One has to go with his statement being true as he could equally argue your friends claims not being true.None of us were there to witness it.

 

I'd be surprised if the Volvo dealer did put it in writing but if they do then expect it to come headed "without predjudice" which means it can't be used. Further, depending on age they might not actually know. Who's to say it wasn't serviced outside of the UK?? We've seen similar here before. If anything it will probably be non commital or "to the best of our knowledge".

 

I don't suppose by any chance this is an ex lease/contract hire car is it??

[hunterandthehunted]

I don't suppose by any chance this is an ex lease/contract hire car is it??

 

yes it was?, any significance?, the company in question cannot give out much details because of the data protection act

but confirmed it was sold on with the service book to the dealer in question.

 

 

Does the invoice/contract have anything written on it in relation to the service book and full dealer history?

 

 

stuffed on this one, just states *£300 to pay and *service book

Edited June 14, 2010 by hunterandthehunted

[heliosuk]

yes it was?, any significance?, the company in question cannot give out much details because of the data protection act

but confirmed it was sold on with the service book to the dealer in question.

 

Good.

 

They have to be a bit guarded in what they give out but you could ask as the new owner if they can confirm or not the car had the two services and if so where as they didn't stamp the book and you'd like to get it up to date. What it will do is clear up any ambiguity with regards the history. If they refuse to give it then I understand that you can send them a letter under the freedom of information act requesting it. I'm pretty sure Martin, Conniff and Sam are up on this. It's not requesting personal info just info your friend is entitled to I think.

 

If it turns out it has or has not had the missing two services then this might just give you something more definite to play with in terms of the defence.

 

One thing does seem sure though that the driver of the car did have it serviced as the history is pretty good though not full and on this basis it's quite possible it was done elsewhere with the driver claiming it back.

 

This would enable your friend to go to the dealer and work a way out of it. The dealer can withdraw the claim I believe on the morning of the given hearing. The other guys know more about this though.

 

I say this because it seems that if the history can be proved and the stamps obtained then your friend is quite willing to pay the outstanding £300??

 

Get the gist??

[Conniff]

There is a difference in full service history and full service in accordance with Volvo servicing schedule.

 

If it has only been serviced once in it's life and has one stamp in the book, then it has full service history.

[hunterandthehunted]

Good.

 

They have to be a bit guarded in what they give out but you could ask as the new owner if they can confirm or not the car had the two services and if so where as they didn't stamp the book and you'd like to get it up to date. What it will do is clear up any ambiguity with regards the history. If they refuse to give it then I understand that you can send them a letter under the freedom of information act requesting it. I'm pretty sure Martin, Conniff and Sam are up on this. It's not requesting personal info just info your friend is entitled to I think.

 

If it turns out it has or has not had the missing two services then this might just give you something more definite to play with in terms of the defence.

 

One thing does seem sure though that the driver of the car did have it serviced as the history is pretty good though not full and on this basis it's quite possible it was done elsewhere with the driver claiming it back.

 

This would enable your friend to go to the dealer and work a way out of it. The dealer can withdraw the claim I believe on the morning of the given hearing. The other guys know more about this though.

 

I say this because it seems that if the history can be proved and the stamps obtained then your friend is quite willing to pay the outstanding £300??

 

Get the gist??

 

helio,

the leasing company have been contacted and they where most helpful.

they stated that they take care of all services etc.. whilst the car is leased

out and confirmed that the vehicle had 4 services by a volvo dealer which

matches the service book in my mates pocession.

Edited June 15, 2010 by hunterandthehunted

[heliosuk]

So you're saying they can't account for the missing two services?

[hunterandthehunted]

So you're saying they can't account for the missing two services?

 

correct because there was'nt any.

Edited June 16, 2010 by hunterandthehunted

[hunterandthehunted]

the defence deadline date is 1 week away and no letter from volvo has turned up so the buyer has been to see them today. they have

been busy but have promised to send confirmation that the car has incomplete service history via e-mail. will this suffice?....

also as some back up the buyer has e-mailed the only previous owner (leasing company) and asked if they would send via e-mail what they said on the telephone, namely that the car was serviced only 4 times.

also we was wondering if a transcript/dialogue of the telephone threat by the seller of putting a ccj by the buyers name would help as he has changed his story which in the letter posted in post 95 . my mate has voicemail of this and at the very least will prove that he seller econimises with the truth so biased letter would not be believed, if you catch my drift

would it be worth inserting this in defence which martin kindly posted in post 92.

Edited June 16, 2010 by hunterandthehunted

[hunterandthehunted]

anyone?????????

[flub1976]

My read on this is as follows.

 

The dealer advertisment is irrelevant as was supperseeded by further discussions at the point of sale. These discussions override any problems with the advertisment and render it useless for a defence.

 

The full service history is in the dealers eyes irrelevant as he is saying the op was shown the history print out and present when the volvo dealer confirmed the details and as such was aware prior to sale that 4 services was all the car had.

 

The dealer is saying that with this information in hand the customer wanted an actual service booklet (not the print out the dealer had) and as such the delaer agreed to the hold fo £300 until he had obtained the service book from volvo and gotten it stamped up ( afairly typical occurance)

 

Nothing has been said by the op as to whether the buyer agrees that he was shown a print out prior to purchase or not but i suspect he was and that he either didnt notice or didnt read it. Does he not still have a print out in his possession?

 

I also agree that the amounts held are not unreasonable for the difference in value and would be irrelevant anyway as the

 

I beleive the dealer will win and agree with earlier posts that court action is risky for the buyer as the dealers story does feel right to me.

 

The problem here is that both sides are actually arguing different points and until the buyer agues the dealers point i.e. i showed him the print out and he wanted it in a book which i have got for him, then the buyer will lose as he has to answer the case!

 

Again Full service history or full dealer service history is irrelevant if you ar emade aware prior to purchase of exactly what the dealer has.

 

You need to answer the case not start a different argument

[flub1976]

so for the typos im not great at typing

[hunterandthehunted]

thanks for your input,

yes is the answer, the buyer was shown a print out of the services at point of sale and was also informed by the dealer that the 4 services was the full dealer service history. so basically the buyer has been conned and tricked.

are you all seriously telling us that this allowed?????????

 

the defence goes ahead.........

[Conniff]

If you look at this logically, the advert got him to see the car, but it wasn't the inducement to buy it.

 

Hard one this, I'm unsure which way to go.

 

If there are 4 services missing because it wasn't serviced, but stamped when it was serviced, then the history is complete. This is the full history according to the dealer.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Conniff

[hunterandthehunted]

If there are 4 services missing because it wasn't serviced, but stamped when it was serviced, then the history is complete. This is the full history according to the dealer.

 

so this is misleading then which is what the the misreprentation act 1967 is there for isnt it?.

the main dealer and the service schedule also clearly states that their vehicles should be serviced every 12,500 miles or annually, which ever comes sooner.

there are 2 points in the schudule that have clearly been missed which makes it part history not full.

Edited June 17, 2010 by hunterandthehunted

[Conniff]

It is a history of the servicing that has been carried out, 'the service history', not a guarantee that all services as per the makers recommendation have been done.

 

If it had only been serviced once in 100,000 miles and that one service was in the book, then that is the full service history.

[hunterandthehunted]

It is a history of the servicing that has been carried out, 'the service history', not a guarantee that all services as per the makers recommendation have been done.

 

If it had only been serviced once in 100,000 miles and that one service was in the book, then that is the full service history.

 

so what would you describe as part history?

[Conniff]

2 services known to have been done but with only 1 showing

[flub1976]

I think you will lose to be honest and if the car is currently ok then I would settle out of court and walk away. (sorry I know this is not what you want to hear) You are going to have to go to the court saying that yes the dealer did show me the service history on the print out (albeit missing 2 services) and I did then agree to buy the car provided the stamped book was also produced. Good luck whichever way you go. And I hope the car is ok as I suspect any further issues with it could be difficult to get sorted with this dealer.

 

I always regard the current condition as more relevant than history etc as I know dealers dont do half what they should on cars under servicing (would you beleive my local nissan dealer didnt even change the airfilter on my navara when they charged me for it,even though I buy cars off them for my pitch!!!)

[hunterandthehunted]

hi flub and thanks,

my mate is going defend and we would like as much advice as possible to present the case.

after all it is a consumers forum.

 

1st question is, in the POC the clamaint has stated that he will provide the defendant with seperate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form. he has failed to do this so can we have it struck out on that basis or do we file an embarressed defence?

[hunterandthehunted]

anyone????????????

[heliosuk]

I would suggest you give in as pointed out earlier, he knew of something we didn't.

 

Chuck him the £300 and get on with life and a lesson learnt. I can't think of any way of getting out of this one despite trying!

 

BTW he will probably ask for his costs as well.

[flub1976]

Hunted bear in mind that this matter is being dealt with by a district judge in chambers and is a small claim. This means that both sides will be given a certain amount of leeway and also that burdens of proof etc are reduced. Get a defence in and answer anything that you get back. I cant really offer anything else.