Money back for material misrepresentation of Bentley Continental GT bought from a luxury car dealer

Because of potentially punitive repair and maintenance costs, provenance is central to the desirability and market value of high-performance and luxury cars.

This leads most people preferring to buy from specialist car dealerships for peace of mind and a greater degree of certainty about the servicing and maintenance costs.

It was precisely this reason that Mr O chose to buy the Bentley Continental GT Speed from a dealer.

The relevant facts

Mr O wished to buy a low mileage, well-serviced and maintained Bentley GT and in thumbing through Autotrader, came across one advertised for sale by JCT9.com for around £29,000.

The car was advertised as having been very well looked after, full-service history and 5+ owners.

Mr O visited the dealer and was shown the car. During the meeting, the dealer reiterated the car facts in the advertisement and explained that it would be fully checked and any required repairs carried out before delivery.

As a result, Mr O bought the Bentley, along with a warranty.

When he went to collect the car the engine management light was on, so it was agreed that it would be fixed and the car delivered later.

After the car was delivered, it was apparent something wasn’t right: the indicator didn’t work, and the car shuddered and pulled heavily to one side. Mr O had the car inspected.

The inspections revealed that the track rod arm needed replacing, the brake calliper was seized, and the steering rack had play in it. Mr O rejected the car, which was declined by the dealer on the basis that what Mr O described did not constitute grounds for a refund.

Jct9 instructed Lawgistics to correspond with Mr O on its behalf.

Our instructions

Stormcatcher specialises in performance and luxury car disputes, and Mr O instructed us to deal with Lawgistics and try and obtain a refund of the purchase price without having to go to court.

The investigation

An investigation into the Vehicle condition and provenance revealed the Bentley did not have a full-service history, had not been well looked after, and had eight previous keepers. Had Mr O known this he would not have bought the car.

In addition to the seized calliper and track rod end, an electronic diagnostic test was carried out, which revealed that seventy-eight fault codes were stored in its ECU systems.

The case

The case is twofold; firstly, that the dealer misrepresented the vehicle’s provenance and condition, and secondly, that it did not meet the standard a consumer would reasonably expect for a £30,000 luxury car that had been well maintained.

Despite this and having no coherent excuse for the misrepresentations, the dealer maintained their belief that there was no reason to reject the Bentley.

Their defence centred on Mr O having test-driven the vehicle before purchase, and he was advised that there was a little bit of play in the suspension as would be commensurate with a vehicle that was thirteen years old and had covered 85,680 miles.

Conclusion

After some considerable correspondence and analysis of the law surrounding misrepresentation and misselling, Mr O accepted a refund of the purchase price along with a contribution towards his costs and compensation.

This case shows the importance of expertise in performance and luxury vehicles and the relevant legal principles, as well as advocacy and negotiation. For legal advice involving motorhome and campervan legal rights in relation to faulty goods, phone 0333 700 7676.