By CHRIS DANIELS
An Auckland car dealership that misled customers about trade-ins has clocked up more than $33,000 in fines.
Enterprise Motors Group and its Panmure dealership were ordered to pay the fines by the Auckland District Court yesterday after pleading guilty to breaching the Fair Trading Act.
The company admitted it misled
consumers when it advertised a "minimum trade-in of $4000" in television commercials.
Commerce Commission lawyer Peter Woolley told the court that a customer had gone to one of the company's yards asking for the trade-in, only to be told the Bedford van would not fetch more than $3000.
On top of this, the trade-in could only be used on half the vehicles in the yard.
One of the firm's commercials had claimed that it would pay "$4000 on your old bomb" and that there was a "huge selection available."
Nowhere were people told that it depended on the customer's car, and that only a few cars could be bought with the trade-in.
The commission said that of the 122 sales under the trade-in scheme, only 46 customers received the full $4000.
The remaining 76 received less, with some customers being paid nothing at all.
The Panmure Enterprise Motors subsidiary was convicted on four charges of breaking the law in advertisements in a mailout to 300,000 Auckland homes.
These advertisements promised a "guaranteed minimum buyback."
This was not an offer to buy back cars but actually a large final payment by customers to get full ownership.
Mr Woolly said Enterprise Motors did not spell out that customers would not sign a purchase agreement but a leasing agreement which required them to pay a large final sum to own the vehicle.
Enterprise Motors' lawyer, David Williams, QC, said the company accepted that the advertisements were not true.
While people might have been brought to the car yard "on a misleading basis" there was no suggestion that any of them had suffered financial loss.
In sentencing Enterprise Motors, Judge Robert Kerr said the "wilfulness and carelessness was not inconsiderable." It was surprising that experienced staff members did not know the advertising was misleading.
