Results 51 to 75 of 88

  1. Post
    #51
    Do you have any evidence that the seller is associated with the dealer? The dealer may have sold without changing the ownership (rather common).

  2. Post
    #52
    Why are you putting up this guy's Facebook information and a picture of him?

  3. Post
    #53
    Yea that's a massive red flag for me too, if it does go to court and that's bought up I imagine the results will be less than favourable

  4. Post
    #54
    Do you have the original ad post?

  5. Post
    #55
    Caffeine wrote:
    Do you have any evidence that the seller is associated with the dealer? The dealer may have sold without changing the ownership (rather common).
    His name appears on the dealer website as a salesperson, screenshot in previous post.

    ludez wrote:
    Why are you putting up this guy's Facebook information and a picture of him?
    So other people don't make the same mistake and buy off this person thinking its a private sale.

    ludez wrote:
    Do you have the original ad post?
    This is the original ad, there was no description:

    Name:  Screenshot_20181127-195614_Facebook.jpg
Views: 190
Size:  557.9 KB

    capriv8 wrote:
    I think luey is in the right. Carjam and mechanical reports are options that most sane people will utilise when buying a car, but they are not an obligation. He's entitled to expect honesty from a seller, and in this case the seller is a car dealer who probably traded a lemon and appears to be trying to worm out of their responsibilities. I'm keen to see how this plays out.
    Thank you, I feel like everyone is for some reason getting behind the dealer...I don't believe I've done anything wrong in this situation, apart from not getting a Carjam report before buying the car. But like capriv8 says this is an optional step in purchasing a car not an obligation. All the info above is also publicly available information. If you think there's any problems with me posting it here I am happy to remove, just trying to let people know! I have also given the seller an opportunity to correct the mistake but no action was taken. I feel I've given them enough of a chance now.

  6. Post
    #56
    No one is siding with him, it's simply that you don't actually know he is a dealer and you're investigating it with blinkers on

    For all you know his mate might be a dealer and asked him to help try and sell it but it couldn't be on their yard without it being in their name, you're witch-hunting without knowing all the info

    And again, all of those things you're saying is wrong with it are shit you could have inspected prior to purchase, how did you not notice a sagging headliner it's a bloody factory feature on a vw, how did you not know the cambelt was due, you saw the milage of the car before you got it

    I'm not saying you're in the wrong I'm saying you're publically torturing the guy without knowing everything on a car you didn't inspect properly before you bought it. At some point caveat emptor has to be addressed.

  7. Post
    #57
    St4lk3r wrote:
    No one is siding with him, it's simply that you don't actually know he is a dealer and you're investigating it with blinkers on

    For all you know his mate might be a dealer and asked him to help try and sell it but it couldn't be on their yard without it being in their name, you're witch-hunting without knowing all the info

    And again, all of those things you're saying is wrong with it are shit you could have inspected prior to purchase, how did you not notice a sagging headliner it's a bloody factory feature on a vw, how did you not know the cambelt was due, you saw the milage of the car before you got it

    I'm not saying you're in the wrong I'm saying you're publically torturing the guy without knowing everything on a car you didn't inspect properly before you bought it. At some point caveat emptor has to be addressed.
    He could have easily told me a story after I tried messaging on Facebook explaining what happened. Chose not to.

    I did do a proper inspection of the car, my point is he wasn't honest with the "oil leak" statement. I bought the car in current condition knowing there's things to fix, not complaining about that at all.

    The point of the thread is that someone is trying to mislead Joe and Jane public about this car and possibly others, not whether or not I've done a proper inspection before purchase.

  8. Post
    #58
    Given you inspected the car, and found all those issues, the car was obviously dirt cheap. Though price seems to be the only information you're covering up. "sub 3k" category means you paid bugger all, for a worn out car and appear quite surprised the car you now have is a worn out sub 3k euro....

  9. Post
    #59
    lueyyou wrote:
    His name appears on the dealer website as a salesperson, screenshot in previous post.



    So other people don't make the same mistake and buy off this person thinking its a private sale.



    This is the original ad, there was no description:

    Name:  Screenshot_20181127-195614_Facebook.jpg
Views: 190
Size:  557.9 KB



    Thank you, I feel like everyone is for some reason getting behind the dealer...I don't believe I've done anything wrong in this situation, apart from not getting a Carjam report before buying the car. But like capriv8 says this is an optional step in purchasing a car not an obligation. All the info above is also publicly available information. If you think there's any problems with me posting it here I am happy to remove, just trying to let people know! I have also given the seller an opportunity to correct the mistake but no action was taken. I feel I've given them enough of a chance now.
    You have absolutely no grounds in the disputes tribunal to get a refund or repair the vehicle. He has not misled you in anyway, the ad proves that.

    It would get thrown out, if he had written car is in excellent condition and not disclosed faults then you would have grounds to take him to the tribunal. IT IS up to the buyer to have the car checked out if they don't then there is no case.

  10. Post
    #60
    Frederick James wrote:
    Sorry to hijack - thought i'd give FB a go with selling my B4 before i reverted to TardMe. Got a dude coming to look at it on Friday.

    My plan was to meet him at the local shopping center and then go from there. Any issues with the car post-sale, i don't want the kent turning up and firebombing my house.

    Any other advice?
    Faark. That's the oldest trick in the book. Any respectable sale would generally advertise then pass on the home address for personal inspection... It is a Suby however... so do what you gotta I guess.

  11. Post
    #61
    snaffta wrote:
    Faark. That's the oldest trick in the book. Any respectable sale would generally advertise then pass on the home address for personal inspection... It is a Suby however... so do what you gotta I guess.
    I never do car sales from my house anymore. Lots of munters around.

  12. Post
    #62
    I'd still give the DT a go. At worst you'll only lose a few more bucks. Most people that buy old euros like to burn cash anyway, right?

  13. Post
    #63
    Mutton wrote:
    I'd still give the DT a go. At worst you'll only lose a few more bucks. Most people that buy old euros like to burn cash anyway, right?
    He's literally got nothing to go on though.

  14. Post
    #64
    He could go on the bus.

  15. Post
    #65
    Mutton wrote:
    He could go on the bus.
    Genuine chuckle

  16. Post
    #66
    I wouldn't go so far as say you got scammed, but certainly they misrepresented themselves (it doesn't sound like they misrepresented the vehicle condition at all) and misled you regarding your rights under consumer law.

    If the vehicle is registered to the dealer then for all intents and purposes they are the seller, and hence you have rights under Fair Trading/Consumer Guarantees legislation.

  17. Post
    #67
    KevinL wrote:
    I wouldn't go so far as say you got scammed, but certainly they misrepresented themselves (it doesn't sound like they misrepresented the vehicle condition at all) and misled you regarding your rights under consumer law.

    If the vehicle is registered to the dealer then for all intents and purposes they are the seller, and hence you have rights under Fair Trading/Consumer Guarantees legislation.
    Exactly this. I'm not saying I was expecting the car to be in perfect condition but if its owned by a dealer then FTA and CGA applies. I'm not going down the path of going to the MVDT because it would be a very lengthy process and the most I'd get out of it is probably just to get a refund and for the dealer to get a slap on the wrist. Like I said before I'll leave the investigation up to the Commerce Commission now.

  18. Post
    #68
    You have no proof other than something on a third party website, saying its "owned by a dealer". He didnt mislead you at all, UNLESS.... you asked him if he is a dealer and he said no, which i take it you didnt do at the time (and that of course presumes the "info" you posted is actually the same person as I see no link other than a common name on a website)?

  19. Post
    #69
    Triple_S wrote:
    You have no proof other than something on a third party website, saying its "owned by a dealer". He didnt mislead you at all, UNLESS.... you asked him if he is a dealer and he said no, which i take it you didnt do at the time (and that of course presumes the "info" you posted is actually the same person as I see no link other than a common name on a website)?
    The link is that Carjam report specifically says the car was owned by 500 Autos at the time of sale, and I found his name on the 500 Autos website as well (all in screenshots from one of my previous posts). Unfortunately his English name isn't in the shareholders of the company records but someone with his last name owns 50% of the shares in that dealer's company, I'm guessing its the same person just with English vs Chinese names.

    And yeah sure I could have asked him if he's a dealer, do you think he would have told me the truth? "Oh sorry yeah I'm actually a dealer but I'm trying to sell this car privately because I don't want to bother with the FTA and the CGA. Just keep this one hush hush yeah?"

  20. Post
    #70
    Who the car is registered to doesn't equal the owner.

  21. Post
    #71
    ollieboy wrote:
    Who the car is registered to doesn't equal the owner.
    Yes it does, according to the Land Transport Act.

  22. Post
    #72
    KevinL wrote:
    Yes it does, according to the Land Transport Act.
    Wrong.

    When you acquire a vehicle, let us know without delay. Once you have told us, you become the registered person. This is not the same as being the legal owner.

    The registered person is simply the person who is entitled to possession of the vehicle. For example, a person who is leasing a vehicle is the registered person of that vehicle but the person they have leased the vehicle from continues to be the legal owner.
    https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/ho...istered-person

  23. Post
    #73
    Vehicle ownership in NZ is a weird one. Anyone can put anyones car into their name, which is silly. But also doesn't make the car theirs.

  24. Post
    #74
    Welp, TIL

    But why would you put the car in the dealership's name if they weren't the owner

    In the examples provided the driver is the registered person but the owner may be someone else (like a leasing company). It doesn't really follow that the individual is the owner but the dealership is the driver?

  25. Post
    #75
    Who knows and who really cares?