A car dealer has been forced to pay up after selling a woman’s car for $7000 more than they said they did and keeping the profits.
The woman, Jessica Harbourne, bought an Audi S5 from Fuzhou Holding Co. Ltd (FHL) in 2016. She fell into financial difficulty in 2018 and asked the company to re-sell it.
When the car was sold, the company said they got $43,000 for it, when in reality, it sold for $50,000 - a $7000 difference.
She only got $35,000, as FHL said there were expenses related to the sale of the car, including Trade Me, grooming, parking and panel beating fees, amounting to.
However, in 2021, Harbourne received an email from the company’s lawyers with the real sales agreement for her car, which was when she realised she’d been duped.
She took FHL to the Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal, wanting the dealership to pay for the $7000 lost.
The Tribunal found that FHL had misled and deceived the woman, saying she had suffered loss as a result of the dealing.
“There is no question in my mind that Mrs Harborne was, in fact, misled and deceived by being told by the message that the vehicle had sold for $43,000 when it had, in fact, been sold for $50,000,” the tribunal said in their decision.
They said she was also misled by “being provided with a false version of the agreement, which contained the sale price of $43,000.”
FHL accepted that they had misled her over the sale price of the car but claimed she hadn’t suffered any loss as a result.
They also claimed they hid the profit, as an employee named Mr Ding had a mutual friend with Harbourne.
They say she wouldn’t have lost money on the car as “the difference between the true sale price of the vehicle and the price that Mrs Harborne was told represents FHL’s costs, commission and profit on the sale”.
The tribunal said this argument made no sense as "the additional documented costs and expenses now claimed do not add up to the $7,000 difference between the represented sale price and the actual sale price.
“Had she known the truth, she could have challenged the payment of $35,000, and this would have led to her receiving the additional $7,000.
"She was reliant on the misleading information she was provided.
“FHL’s version of events simply does not hold together very well for all or frankly any of the foregoing reasons.”
The company has been ordered to pay $10,087 to Harbourne, the original $7000 owed and $3087 in interest.
The tribunal decision has been appealed, with another hearing scheduled for June.
SHARE ME