Ben

Extremely exaggerated car descriptions

I traveled nearly 300 miles to purchase this car and was disappointed to find that the advert description had been extremely exaggerated. Unfortunately, as I purchased the car on finance I was unable to walk away from the vehicle and have since had to battle to fix issues with it. The autotrader advert said the vehicle had no stone chips or marks on the front of the car as a paint protection film had been applied from new. Upon arrival it was clear to see that the film had been applied over the top of existing chips and scratches and would have been applied several years after the car was new. There were numerous paintwork touch ups underneath the protection film so the car was seriously misadvertised in saying that it had no marks. On 16th May I emailed the seller prior to making a decision to buy the car to ask if the paint protection film could be removed. The seller said yes it can be removed. On Sunday 3rd June I removed the paint protection film and it damaged the bonnet and bumper, peeling off big pieces of lacquer. This has since cost me £500 to have repainted. The dealer returned £100 to me as a gesture which I didn’t feel was enough. During painting of the bumper and bonnet the body shop advised that the front end of the car has been painted previously after accident damage, which is the reason the paint protection film peeled off the inferior repair paint. In the advert the wheels were described as unmarked. Upon arrival three of the wheels had chunks missing from the rims which had been painted over with gloss black paint. The rear passenger wheel had permanent staining on the rim from fuel dripping onto the wheel directly below the fuel cap when refuelling. The wheels were so cloudy and swirl marked that they require repainting. The battery failed on the journey home. The seller initially tried to get me to replace the battery with a cheap lead acid battery despite it requiring an AGM type. The seller also insisted the battery does not need coding to the car. However, several bmw specialists disagree and have said that failure to code the battery to the car will result in premature wear of the battery or faults in the car’s electrical system. The seller sent me £50 towards the battery but it cost £288 to have replaced at BMW. The battery was reported as faulty on a service report in the vehicle’s paperwork, but the dealer decided to sell it on to me with the faulty battery still in place. The advert described the tyre condition as excellent in his advert description. However, a day before collection the front tyres were an advisory on the mot as they were near the legal limit. The tyres were replaced with a budget brand, not the original michelin tyres that were pictured in the advert photos. This may be inconsequential but the budget tyres were approximately £100 and the Michelins which were photographed on the car in the advert are £400+. The seller didn’t give me an opportunity to test drive the car and said he’d ‘got things to be getting on with.’ The seller told me to look through the paperwork for the car on the way from the station. It was hard for me to look thoroughly in that situation. I felt I was being rushed. The seller arrived to collect me from the station around 20 minutes later than my original arrival time of 10.50am. The seller advertised the vehicle as having heated seats. Upon arrival the vehicle was not fitted with heated seats. Since purchase the damage caused by the stone chip shield has cost me £500. Replacing the front tyres with the original tyres that were advertised in the dealer photos has cost me £300. Replacing the battery which failed on the way home cost me £288. Overall I am disappointed with the dealer and what he has done to rectify the issues.