FILE NUMBER: 09-70581

HEARING DATE: December 7, 2009

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: KATHERINE CONNELL

MOTOR DEALER and/or SALESPERSON: CUNNINGHAM FORD LTD. (Dealer #6754)

ISSUE:

• A consumer purchased the vehicle from the dealer in May 2005.
• The dealer represented that the vehicle as in perfect condition: low mileage, accident-free and imported from Texas in 2004.
• The dealer further declared there was no damage over $2,000.
• In June 2009, the consumer tried to sell the car privately for $13,500, subject to a clear title search.
• A CarFax and subsequent CarProof search showed the car was titled as a salvage vehicle in 1994 in California and in Colorado – the sale fails.
• An inspection determined that the vehicle was in a major accident that would have resulted in the vehicle being written off.
• The dealer relied in part on an ICBC vehicle history report that was run only 6 weeks after the car was imported from Texas.
• The dealer relied in part on an importation inspection which clearly indicated it was not a full vehicle inspection.

OUTCOME:

• The consumer was within the limitation period to bring a claim for this transaction under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
• At the time of sale, there were outward signs the vehicle was damaged and repaired.
• The dealer’s reliance on the ICBC report was unreasonable. On its face the report stated that it contained no information on the prior 12-year USA history.
• In these circumstances, the dealer did not meet its statutory duty of taking reasonable steps to make its declaration of damage over $2,000.
• The dealer breached the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act by misrepresenting the history and quality of the vehicle.
• The dealer also breached the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act by making representations, but failing to state a material fact.
• The dealer was order to take back the vehicle and pay the consumer the $13,500, she lost on the sale, plus $134.40 she paid for the vehicle inspection.
• The dealer was ordered to pay a $2,000 administrative penalty and reimburse the VSA $2,799.59, for its investigation costs.

COMPLETE DECISION: File 09-70581 Hearing Decision File Connell v Joe Cunningham January 21, 2010

Top