VSA
Login

Registrar's Decision

Registrar's Decision 11-003

File Number: 11-003

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: MICHAEL O’NEIL AND STEPHANIE O’NEIL

Licensee/Unlicensed person:

WOODGROVE CHRYSLER AND DUANE MACKIE AND JANET DAYNE AND ANDREW HEYS

Issues:

  • The consumers purchased a Dodge pick up from the dealer.
  • About a month later, they had some mechanical issues with the Dodge which the dealer resolved. At this time they reviewed their purchase and finance documents with their parents and with others, and became concerned about some charges and the total amount owing.
  • The consumers made various complaints including that: (1) they were charged $3000 more than they agreed; (2) they were not given what they expected for their trade-in; (3) the dealer applied a $3000 down payment that they did not provide; and (4) they were told purchasing insurance plans and a warranty were mandatory.
  • The dealer gave evidence that the consumers were explained about the $3000 difference to secure financing and that it did not change the actual amount they owed. The dealer denied telling the consumers the extra insurances and warranty were mandatory and provided evidence to show they were explained as optional.
  • The dealer had evidence to show the trade-in price was as agreed and properly credited to the consumers on their purchase agreement.

Outcome:

  • The consumers’ complaints against the dealer and the salespersons were dismissed in their entirety.
  • During the hearing, one of the consumers admitted they were explained the $3000 difference in the price and the down payment so they could secure financing. This was inconsistent with their previous written statement in their complaint.
  • The evidence showed the consumers were given a choice to accept or reject the insurance and warranty products.
  • The evidence also showed the consumers received the agreed to amount for their trade-in.
  • The evidence shows the consumers did not understand or appreciate the total costs involved in purchasing and financing a motor vehicle.
  • A consumer’s misunderstanding must be due to a dealer or salesperson’s misrepresentation, or their failure to state a material fact, before it will be a deceptive act or practice under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
  • There was no evidence that the dealer or the salespersons made a misrepresentation, or failed to state a material fact, that caused the consumers’ misunderstanding in this case.

Click here for the full decision (PDF)

Follow us on Instagram

Contact Us

VSA
Facebook-f Linkedin Instagram Youtube