GDPR

[sparkster968]

Hi all,

I'm closing in on the purchase of a recent used Merc from a prominent (non-Merc) dealership.

While in the dealership, and after the test drive, I was told that GDPR does not allow me to see the V5C (protecting privacy of the owner/previous owner). Afterwards I did some research which appeared to confirm that I do have a right to see the V5C. They then replied by email with a scanned V5C with all owner/keeper details redacted. I then asked if I would be able to physically see/handle the paper V5C on my next visit e.g., to examine the watermark. They replied by email yes, but they would need to conceal the owner/keeper details.

Is this BS?

[Nickp82]

I am interested to know why it is an issue for you? It sounds like the dealership are trying to do the right thing (whether or not they 'have' to I don't know but DVLA's removal of previous owner details on v5s suggest they may).
Is it because you would like to know if it is ex-rental or similar?

[Dan W.]

At my dealership we will allow people to see the v5 after they have purchased the vehicle.

we wouldn't let them see it before hand.

if someone asks who the owners were we do tell the ( private, business or other ), but agree with not showing it to someone who hasn't yet purchased it.

[sparkster968]

Hi Nick,
Many thanks for your reply.
Yes, I'm keen to ensure that the car was privately owned - not leased/ex-rental etc. The dealer says it was privately owned - but I only have their word for this. I'm one of those types that does like to verify important details for myself.
If the dealer is abiding by good practice - as required post 25 May when GDPR took effect - and is not engaging in some kind of a 'dodgy' smoke and mirrors charade - then fine.

[sparkster968]

Hi Dan,
Excellent and very helpful info.
By way of background, I haven't bought a used car, or any car with my own money, in quite some time so the post-GDPR 'antics' I experienced raised question marks as to the dealer's motives. But, if the dealer's behaviour is the new standard operating procedure, then my concerns will fall away.

[Dan W.]

sparkster968 said:

Hi Dan,
Excellent and very helpful info.
By way of background, I haven't bought a used car, or any car with my own money, in quite some time so the post-GDPR 'antics' I experienced raised question marks as to the dealer's motives. But, if the dealer's behaviour is the new standard operating procedure, then my concerns will fall away.

Hi Bud

good luck with the purchase, that is just the way we have always worked, if asked we say who the owner was, and once a deposit has been taken we do give them a photocopy of the v5 as proof along with the order form. \


I know a lot of places don't do this, and I guess us dealers or salesmen have crappy reputations but I think its good practice to not allow someone to know the exact details of the previous owner until they have owned the car.

but I agree this is more to combat dealers selling cars as private owned if they were lease.....

[Pistonheader101]

When you're log book come through won't it say who the previous owner was? Or will DVLA stop that too?

[sparkster968]

Thanks Dan,
Your insights are appreciated.

[Nickp82]

Pistonheader101 said:

When you're log book come through won't it say who the previous owner was? Or will DVLA stop that too?

DVLA have already stopped the printing of previous owner details on V5s.

[Pistonheader101]

Cheers thought this would be the case post may 25th

[sparkster968]

Pistonheader101 said:

When you're log book come through won't it say who the previous owner was? Or will DVLA stop that too?

Pistonheader - I'm not sure if the previous owner's name will appear on the new V5C. My research yesterday suggested the DVLA's policies have changed in some way with respect to the presentation of previous owner's details.

My concern is to establish if the car was privately owned and not e.g., an ex-rental. I felt seeing the owner's details on the V5C would be a helpful addition to building a true picture of the car's ownership history. Seeing the info on the new log book after the sale could be like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. So, as things stand, I'm being asked to accept the word of a salesman I've never met before from a dealership I've had no past dealings with - and to enter into a sales contract on that basis. Being decidedly old-school, that makes me more than a bit nervous. I prefer the trust, but verify, approach.

[Dan W.]

sparkster968 said:

Pistonheader - I'm not sure if the previous owner's name will appear on the new V5C. My research yesterday suggested the DVLA's policies have changed in some way with respect to the presentation of previous owner's details.

My concern is to establish if the car was privately owned and not e.g., an ex-rental. I felt seeing the owner's details on the V5C would be a helpful addition to building a true picture of the car's ownership history. Seeing the info on the new log book after the sale could be like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. So, as things stand, I'm being asked to accept the word of a salesman I've never met before from a dealership I've had no past dealings with - and to enter into a sales contract on that basis. Being decidedly old-school, that makes me more than a bit nervous. I prefer the trust, but verify, approach.

I would say you need to trust their word up until the point at which you have placed a deposit, then you have shown commitment then if they still refuse to show you the details I would question this very much so.

worst case scenario they photocopy it and hand it to you on the day of handover as proof it was private if they do neither of those things its suspicious.

[0a]

On another note, I find it interesting that a rental or fleet owner is seen as being much worse.

With a rental, a broad pool of people will have driven it. Assuming there are a range of drivers, from excellent to bad, you are almost certain that these average out.

With a private owner if they are a terrible driver, you have 100% terrible driving on your car!

[sparkster968]

Dan W. said:

I would say you need to trust their word up until the point at which you have placed a deposit, then you have shown commitment then if they still refuse to show you the details I would question this very much so.

worst case scenario they photocopy it and hand it to you on the day of handover as proof it was private if they do neither of those things its suspicious.

Thanks Dan,

That strikes me as sound advice. I'll do as you suggest.

[sparkster968]

0a said:

On another note, I find it interesting that a rental or fleet owner is seen as being much worse.

With a rental, a broad pool of people will have driven it. Assuming there are a range of drivers, from excellent to bad, you are almost certain that these average out.

With a private owner if they are a terrible driver, you have 100% terrible driving on your car!

0a,
You make a very good point - one I've thought about a lot. I've done some research via various forums on this and I'd say opinions are split 50/50 on this. Where I've come to is to try to take as many factors as possible into account, throw them into the ol' gut-feel-o-meter, and then go with what seems to add up and feels right.

[Dan W.]

some very good points on this and arguments for either the car being driven well or badly.

this issue I always see if the honesty part, some dealers hide the fact who owned it.

if we ever had a lease car or contract hire car we would always mention it to the customer for them to make the choice if they want to own it.

[sparkster968]

Dan W. said:

some very good points on this and arguments for either the car being driven well or badly.

this issue I always see if the honesty part, some dealers hide the fact who owned it.

if we ever had a lease car or contract hire car we would always mention it to the customer for them to make the choice if they want to own it.

Dan,
Yes, IMO the 'honesty part' is the key thing. Or perhaps it is the sense of all-round integrity one gets from the encounter with the dealer. This is my first encounter with the dealer in question (as I said earlier, a well known name). They appear to be well-trained but in so many small ways their words and actions undermined the foundations of trust. That is not to say they are not trustworthy - I don't know them well enough to know - it is to say they have not 'communicated' that they are trustworthy. I therefore have to assume, that for practical purposes, they are not trustworthy.

[Dan W.]

sparkster968 said:

Dan,
Yes, IMO the 'honesty part' is the key thing. Or perhaps it is the sense of all-round integrity one gets from the encounter with the dealer. This is my first encounter with the dealer in question (as I said earlier, a well known name). They appear to be well-trained but in so many small ways their words and actions undermined the foundations of trust. That is not to say they are not trustworthy - I don't know them well enough to know - it is to say they have not 'communicated' that they are trustworthy. I therefore have to assume, that for practical purposes, they are not trustworthy.

Yes to be fair I wouldn't trust us sales people either lol

[sparkster968]

Dan W. said:

Yes to be fair I wouldn't trust us sales people either lol

Dan,

I used to be self-effacing too, but gave it up because I wasn't very good at it.

Here's but one example from my brief encounter with the dealership. After what was a struggle, I got them to show me their presales 'inspection report' (a very limited report). This was only available online and with the salesman in control of the screen - no paper copy was available or offered. I noticed that the car - only 16 months old - had been MOT'd. I pointed this out. It was news to the salesman and he had no explanation. I raised this again in a follow-up email. The salesman then checked with the Service Manager who stated simply that the MOT had been done in error. Confidence was not inspired.

[Dan W.]

sparkster968 said:

Dan W. said:

Yes to be fair I wouldn't trust us sales people either lol

Dan,

I used to be self-effacing too, but gave it up because I wasn't very good at it.

Here's but one example from my brief encounter with the dealership. After what was a struggle, I got them to show me their presales 'inspection report' (a very limited report). This was only available online and with the salesman in control of the screen - no paper copy was available or offered. I noticed that the car - only 16 months old - had been MOT'd. I pointed this out. It was news to the salesman and he had no explanation. I raised this again in a follow-up email. The salesman then checked with the Service Manager who stated simply that the MOT had been done in error. Confidence was not inspired.

mot hmmm that's an odd one for that age. can only think it was a taxi.... in its former life they need an mot 1 year after registration I believe, may be wrong on that

I can only say to you what I say to my customers, if it feels right go for it, it if feels wrong walk away.

I agree saying a mot was done in error... that's a silly thing to claim