Registrar's Decision

Registrar's Decision 07-70263

File Number: 07-70263

In the matter of THE MOTOR DEALER ACT R.S.B.C.1996 C.316


Licensee/Unlicensed person:



  • The consumers complained that Parkwood misrepresented the BMW’s true distance traveled as 50,127 km when it had over 250,000 km at the time of sale.
  • The consumers also claimed that Parkwood, through Mr. Hawes, said the BMW had low kilometers as it was lady driven.
  • Parkwood stated it made a declaration of “unknown” for its statutory declaration under section 23(e) of the Motor Dealer Act Regulation.
  • Parkwood denied it made any other verbal representations about the odometer.
  • Parkwood also stated the evidence showed the consumers understood “unknown” as meaning the odometer on the BMW did not accurately indicate the true distance travelled.


  • Parkwood made three different written representations about the odometer (a) 50,127 km; (b) “unknown” (both on the purchase agreement) and (c) exceeds 100,000 km on the ICBC Transfer/Tax form.
  • Parkwood’s evidence was it said nothing to properly qualify or clear up these three very different representations about the odometer reading.
  • Parkwood obtained the BMW through Adesa which announced that the odometer did not accurately reflect the true distance traveled and that the “true mileage was unknown”. An invoice from Adesa in Parkwood’s dealer file confirmed this. Parkwood misled the consumers by saying it did not know if the odometer indicated the true distance traveled; as it did know – a deliberate deceptive act.
  • Declaring “unknown” or “no guarantee” does not meet the motor dealer’s duty imposed by section 23(e) of the Motor Dealer Act Regulation. Such declarations would provide an avenue for motor dealers to make no inquiries at all.
  • Parkwood did not make a simple inquiry with the dealer it had purchased the BMW from; through Adesa. That dealer had changed the odometer and had all the necessary information about the BMW’s odometer.
  • The consumer’s own conduct was called into question. The evidence was such that their conduct coupled with their lateness in making a complaint was to be taken at law as having affirmed the contract with knowledge of the misrepresentation. They were thus disentitled to a remedy under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
  • The fact that a consumer is not awarded damages does not mean a motor dealer’s conduct is not a deceptive act or that its conduct cannot be reviewed under the Motor Dealer Act or the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
  • Parkwood was assessed a $10,000 administrative penalty.
  • Mr. Hawes was assessed a $750 administrative penalty.
  • Parkwood and Mr. Hawes were jointly and severally responsible to reimburse the VSA its investigation and hearing costs of $2,878.17.
  • See the case of Re Parkwood Auto Sales Ltd & Beune & Hawes August 6, 2010 for a decision regarding Parkwood’s registration and Mr. Hawes’ and Mr. Beune’s salesperson licenses.

Click here for the full decision (PDF)