Value Cars Whangārei (VCW) sold vehicle of unacceptable quality, Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal finds

Value Cars Whangārei in Kamo, Whangārei. Photo / Michael Cunningham

A Whangārei car dealership has been ordered to pay more than $2000 to a customer it trespassed after a sale soured.

A decision from the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal found Value Cars Whangārei (VCW) to have sold an Isuzu D-Max that suffered from a number of mechanical issues and had significant corrosion.

Abraham Hone Malpaz-Caisley agreed to pay $32,500 for a 2016 Izuzu D-Max on January 19, but later became concerned after discovering rust had been painted over.

He had previously visited VCW and found an Isuzu D-Max vehicle he was interested in, but it sold before he could buy it. VCW director Michael Bell suggested that if Malpaz-Caisley found a vehicle listed on Trade Me, the dealership could facilitate the sale.

Malpaz-Caisley sent a Trade Me link of a 2016 Izuzu D-Max to Bell, who said he would make contact with the seller. Bell later bought the vehicle in a Trade Me auction for $29,000, but before it was handed over, the owner went to get a warrant of fitness (WoF), which it failed.

Malpaz-Caisley said Bell told him it was due to seatbelts and ball joints, which VCW would get fixed. He said there was no mention of rust.

He discovered the “shocking” problem when he used the vehicle prior to repairs. He noticed rust in the engine bay and underneath the vehicle. He also picked up that the speedometer was not working properly.

Malpaz-Caisley sent Bell a message later that evening which said: “Bit of a sneaky guy to have it up for auction with all the rust, aye.”

Bell replied: “We’ll sort that easy enough mate. Don’t worry. My man is on to it.”

An invoice for repairs included “paint all rusty looking parts”.

The tribunal noted that it found it hard to accept this was not a “deliberate attempt to avoid the extent of the rust being immediately detected”.

“Indeed, the tribunal has rarely seen such a bad case of corrosion in a vehicle being sold by a trader.”

Malpaz-Caisley, even more concerned about the condition of the vehicle, messaged Bell about the rust being covered up with under-body paint. He began to ask questions about the repairs, which led to a sharp deterioration in the tone of the messages between him and Bell.

Bell insisted the vehicle be picked up immediately, and when Malpaz-Caisley arrived to do so, he was served a trespass notice.

The tribunal’s assessor found the vehicle had 14 issues, 10 of which were WoF failures.

VCW argued it was not responsible for the vehicle as it did not sell the car, but instead facilitated the purchase.

However, the tribunal found VCW did sell the vehicle for a number of reasons, which included taking a cut ($500), negotiating a price for the vehicle that was $3500 less than what Malpaz-Caisley paid and that VCW came to a separate, written agreement with Malpaz-Caisley.

The tribunal ordered that Malpaz-Caisley’s application to reject the vehicle be allowed, that VCW had to pay $2543 to Malpaz-Caisley and that Malpaz-Caisley’s loan agreements for the car were transferred to VCW.