$11,500 used car rejected and refunded after an undisclosed write-off
The dealer described the car as having no accident history. A check run when he changed insurer showed a recorded structural write-off. A $250 card deposit did the heavy lifting.
Client: A first-time buyer who discovered the vehicle history six weeks after purchase
$12,020
Total recovered
$250
Card deposit that engaged Section 75
12x
Recovery versus the dealer's first offer
What the client brought us
Our client bought a used car from a dealer for $11,500, paying a $250 deposit by credit card and the balance by bank transfer. The advertisement and the sales invoice both described the vehicle as having no recorded accident damage.
Six weeks later, changing insurer, he was asked about a recorded structural write-off. A history check confirmed it, recorded two years before the sale.
He returned to the dealer, which offered $1,000 as a goodwill gesture and pointed to a clause in the invoice stating that buyers should satisfy themselves as to a vehicle's history.
How we assessed it
Two arguments ran together.
Under the Consumer Rights Act, goods must be as described. A vehicle advertised as having no accident history that is in fact a recorded structural write-off is not as described, and the misdescription goes to something a reasonable buyer would obviously treat as material. A clause telling the buyer to check for themselves does not displace a positive statement the seller has made, and terms attempting to exclude liability for misdescription face a fairness test they generally fail.
Under Section 75, the credit card provider was jointly liable with the dealer for that misrepresentation. The cash price of $11,500 sat well within the $100 to $30,000 range, and the $250 card payment was sufficient to engage it.
We commissioned an independent valuation quantifying the difference between the price paid and the market value of a written-off vehicle of the same age and mileage, which came to $3,100. We claimed rejection and a full refund as the primary remedy, with the diminution in value as the alternative.
What we found
Positive misdescription in the advert and invoice
Not an omission but a statement that the vehicle had no accident history. That is a misrepresentation, which Section 75 covers explicitly.
Exclusion clause used to defeat a positive statement
A clause requiring the buyer to check does not neutralise a specific factual assertion by the seller, and faces a fairness test in any event.
Goodwill offer far below the actual loss
The $1,000 offered was less than a third of the independently assessed $3,100 difference in value.
Beyond the 30-day rejection window
The short-term right to reject had lapsed, but the misrepresentation claim under Section 75 was not time-limited in the same way.
How it was fixed
The provider initially offered the $3,100 diminution figure. We held out for rejection on the basis that our client had bought a car he would not have bought at any price had he known, and that a structural write-off affects insurability and resale in ways a price adjustment does not cure.
The provider agreed to rejection eight weeks later. The car was collected, the full $11,500 refunded, and $340 paid for wasted insurance and road tax. The independent valuation cost $180 and was reimbursed as part of the claim.
He bought a different car, and ran a history check on it before paying anything.
Business result
- Full $11,500 refunded and the vehicle returned
- $340 recovered for wasted insurance and road tax
- $180 valuation fee reimbursed as part of the claim
- Rejection achieved rather than the $1,000 goodwill offer originally made
“The dealer offered a thousand pounds and said that was that. It had not crossed my mind that the credit card company was equally on the hook for all of it.”
Client, Yorkshire
More case outcomes
$6,200 kitchen deposit recovered from a $200 card payment
The installer took a deposit, missed three start dates, then dissolved the company. The provider initially refused because only $200 of the $6,200 had gone on the credit card, which…
- Total recovered
- $6,980 Total recovered
- Card payment that triggered liability
- $200 Card payment that triggered liability
- To reverse the initial refusal
- 11 days To reverse the initial refusal
$19,400 reimbursed after a bank blamed the customer for an impersonation scam
The bank refused reimbursement for gross negligence. It had not identified that the customer was recently bereaved, had not asked, and its warning did not address the scam that actually…
- Total recovered including interest
- $22,330 Total recovered including interest
- Refusals overturned
- 2 Refusals overturned
- From referral to settlement
- 19 weeks From referral to settlement
$1,730 recovered from a subscription cancelled three years earlier
He cancelled in the app and received no confirmation. Payments continued for thirty-eight months. The bank's own record of a phone call turned out to be stronger evidence than anything…
- Recovered including interest
- $1,730 Recovered including interest
- Payments had been running
- 38 months Payments had been running
- To resolution
- 5 weeks To resolution