FILE NUMBER:

HEARING DATES: October 15 and November 29, 2007

IN THE MATTER OF THE MOTOR DEALER ACT R.S.B.C.1996 C.316 AND
THE BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT S.B.C. 2004 c.2

COMPLAINANT: PAUL RATTE

MOTOR DEALER and/or SALESPERSON: APPLEWOOD KIA (Dealer #27289)

ISSUE:

• This matter came before the Registrar of Motor Dealers following a decision of the Customer Compensation Fund Board (CCFB) finalized on June 22, 2007. Applewood Kia (DL #27289) has appealed the Compensation Fund ruling.
• Paul Ratte was issued an award of $1997.60 by the CCFB as it was felt that Mr. Ratte had suffered damages caused by the improper conduct of Applewood Kia.
• The funds have not been paid out pursuant to this award as Applewood Kia formally requested that the CCFB reconsider its decision on June 22, 2007.
• Mr. Ratte alleged that Applewood Kia made representations regarding the manufacturers warranty available on the 2004 Toyota Tacoma truck that mislead him into purchasing the vehicle, contrary to Section 4 of the BPCPA.
• Mr. Ratte also alleged that he made a few repairs while he owned the vehicle and that he would like to be reimbursed, yet he failed to produce invoices for these repairs or any verifiable evidence to show that any of the repairs would have related to the manufacturer’s warranty.
• The Rebuilt status and damage over $2000 declarations were not properly shown on the Bill of Sale but Mr. Ratte acknowledges that he was told verbally that the vehicle had been in a previous accident.
• Applewood Kia discovered the errors on the Bill of Sale and took specific steps to correct the documentation. Ms. Saade who originally assisted Mr. Ratte with the first Bill of sale contact Mr. Ratte to have him resign a revised Bill of Sale showing the vehicle as having had prior damages over $2000 and as being Rebuilt.
• Ms. Saade was of the view that before Mr. Ratte signed the revised document; he knew both that the truck was a Rebuilt and that there was no manufacturer’s warranty on his vehicle.
• Applewood’s submission was that Mr. Ratte suffered no damages in this situation.

OUTCOME:

• Registrar reserved his decision with a written decision to follow.
• Registrar’s written decision was that Mr. Ratte not be entitled to any compensation in this matter; and that Applewood Kia failed to make proper disclosure on the 2004 Toyota Tacoma truck sold to Mr. Ratte and therefore committed a deceptive act under Section 4 of the BPCPA, the administrative assessment against Applewood Kia shall be $2000; and they will also need to reimburse the VSA for all investigation and hearing costs.

COMPLETE DECISION: File Hearing Decision File Ratte v Applewood Kia April 16, 2008

Top