In the matter ofย 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:ย KATHERINE CONNELL
Licensee/Unlicensed person:
CUNNINGHAM FORD LTD.
Issues:
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 โ 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 dealerโs 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.
