The most trusted and popular consumer complaints website
Explore your opportunities! Create an account or Sign In

Copart UK / Misrepresentation

1 United Kingdom Review updated:

This car auction gave false online information for the car and after the sale I was told that according to their Terms and Conditions neither the auction or the seller ( in this case Royal Sun & Alliance) are responsible for the description of the cars they selling. This is unbelievable for 21th century Britain. So if you have to deal with this company be aware.

More details:

On 5th May 2010 I bought an Audi A6 from Copart UK (Who sell mostly damaged cars on behalf of insurance companies) on their Sandtoft auction.I paid £7717.25. It was clearly advertised as Category D and also stated as Category D on the Reciept. When I tried to register the car I was told the car is Category C . Insurance companies categorising damaged cars in 4 categories - A, B, C & D. Category A - for scrap only, Category B - for spare parts, Category C - damage repairable in need of Vehicle Identity Check before Registration document can be obtained and it states that car was substantially damaged and repaired, Category D – Damaged and repairable. Category D cars have much bigger value than Category C.

After more then 3 weeks and several calls and e -mails on Tuesday 8th June Copart e mailed me and told me that In view of Terms of sale the sale is final and the matter closed. The say I have to check the car information myself, but in order to do that I need the car registration, which is hidden in the web page.

On 6th of july I sold the car unrepaired with the right category C in Chester branch of Copart for £5875.56. So my lost is £1841.69.

For more information e-mail me on gia955@gmail.com

more details »

5g
Sort by: UpDate | Rating

Comments

  • Mi
      25th of Jan, 2013
    0 Votes

    Hi
    I am a car dealer mainly dealing with salvage cars (CoPart Chester UK). Contrary to my initial impressions, Copart has made me suffer a severe loss recently.

    Once I had won a bid on my choice of car (Honda Civic), I was congratulated about how I had also won a bid on a certain Ford Focus. And that now I had to pay a whopping £4200 for it!! A car which I had absolutely not even viewed once, let alone putting it in my watchlist, and now I was to pay for it! I was disappointed with this online scam, and upon contacting customer services and talking to a manager, they insisted I had to pay up a minimum of £400 as a fine.

    I am extremely dumbfounded at how such a well established company can possibly have such an unreliable online system. This tactic is worse than what crooks do. Why must I pay for a car I never bid for?? I find this to be a load of crap, for now, my account has been frozen and I cannot even claim the Honda Civic that I actually won and paid for.

    Contact me on mirza84@hotmail.co.uk for more info.

  • Kd
      27th of Apr, 2013
    0 Votes

    i won a smart car from copart and when the car was delivered i realise the chassis and the frame were completely gone. i call them upand told them the car could'nt have been cat d that it should be cat B. The manager bulied me off and said its cat d. I ask my local garage for their opinion and they gave me their verdict that it's definately a cat b. I went online and check only to discover it's cat b. I sent them the report and they called to say they are coming to pick the car and issue a refund. But i had already incure some expenses. How do i claim my expenses on the car back? please help k.don74@yahoo.com

  • Rj
      11th of Nov, 2013
    0 Votes

    Copart are biggest scam, be aware from Copart if you read term and condition, you can term they made only to save Copart front any claim, Buyer have no right to make complaint or claim, they always have a excuse to tell.
    in my case I won Vauxhall Astra 55reg, I seen on Copart web site that front bumper are fitted as normal and car have minor damages,
    when I car delivered to be, I was shocked no bumper on the car, Front Panel front Chassis are damaged, Radiator are bend.

    when I rise my issue The Copart Manager said I should come view before bid. Copart has 7 or more branch in UK, how can a Buyer go see car, when this are online auction and images should be true image of car, Copart has Misrepresentation the actual damage.

    Be aware from Copart.
    if anyone know who to complaint about Copart then please let me know.
    Thanks

  • Co
      14th of May, 2014
    0 Votes

    coparts are the biggest, lying, rip of merchants in britain, infact how the hell have trading standarts not taken them to court, are they above british law, if you or i did what they do we would be taken to court

  • Jo
      6th of Oct, 2014
    0 Votes

    I am looking for any reviews from sellers of vehicles to Copartdirect to see if their experience was good or not. I accepted an offer for my Daihatsu Extol van made by copartdirect through CarTakeBack.com. I filled in all the online questions honestly and accurately, so my suspicions were raised when copartdirect said that the information they received was that there was no bodywork damage. There were no questions about bodywork and that did surprise me. When I then said that there was some bumper damage at the front of the vehicle the price was immediately dropped by £50 but what really alarmed me was being told that I would be paid within 2 hours of my van being collected. I said that this was not acceptable and that I would get back to them if I decided to proceed. Does anyone out there also have similar experence or can anyone give me any advice please. Many thanks, Joanna

  • Fr
      11th of Dec, 2014
    -1 Votes

    Concerned resident in close proximity (30 metres) of new proposed Copart development would like to know of other residents' experiences with this company in respect of Noise pollution email:- frankhux@aol.com

  • Sl
      20th of Dec, 2014
    0 Votes

    recently I've purchase Renault master with rear primary damage, all over, starts and drive.
    when I went to pick up the van I've discovered that the van has significant damage to all radiators, all hidden not obvious!
    refund has been refused because they stated that secondary damage is :allover!

  • Ch
      24th of Mar, 2016
    0 Votes

    Copart robbed me also, they sold me a vehicle that cannot be legally repaired and put back on the road, but yet the state that the vehicle is a cad D light damage.

  • Gu
      13th of May, 2016
    0 Votes

    Hi this is Gulfraz i baught a car from copart on 06/04/16 lot number 20388026 honda jazz as cad D but when I repaired it and applied for V5 after one month i got call from midlands police that car i have is a stolen and have to provide some paper work with is saying that this isn't stolen try to contact Wolverhampton branch where i got this car said to me they can't do anything have to speak with head office when i spoke with those guys they said they can't do anything only Wolverhampton branch will sort it out. Now my name is in criminal record if anyone from Copart can do anything thing please please help me...

  • Sh
      7th of Aug, 2016
    0 Votes

    I have been buying from copart and have had some worse experiences.
    Bought a car once, mileage was clocked from 200k to 90k just recently. Usually they mention 'mileage discrepancy' in case of private entry, they said they don't check mileage on insurgence cars but I guess this car was copart own car as they sell their own cars as well.
    I told them about mileage but they refused to take it back, I had to pay penalty £250 for not paying/collecting car. They relisted the car and THE MOST AMAZING THING is they didn't mention the mileage again even they realized it this time. Good luck to the buyer.

    My second bad experience was recently a car I bought, I paid online, went there to collect, car had smoky and noisy engine, usually they mention as 'mechanical', but they didn't mention anything. Asked manager, he refused to take responsibility, he offered he would put it for me in the auction as private entry but will mention the mechanical things, I said when you sold it, you didn't mention anything, but now for me rules were changed. He had no answer. I contacted regional manager+head office, they didn't help, I refused to take car, they relisted the car back, again this time I was charged £250 penalty for relisting/not taking the car. They relisted it and AGAIN not mentioning 'mechanical', despite they knew this time. Whoever buy it will cry.
    This proves that they are used to hide facts and do such dodgy tricks and fraud on the cost paid by buyers.
    In the above 2 cases I was lucky that I realized the things before collecting and paid the penalty only. But in a few cases I am still paying the cost where the cars came to me, copart says once the car leaves the yard, they can't do anything, but it's just an excuse, they will never help you even if the car is there as happened to me in the above 2 cases.
    They have a very short cut excuse 'terms and conditions' say: come and see the car first before buying. Is it possible to go all over the UK to check copart cars where a trader like me has 10-20 cars everyday in the watchlist? Why don't they make it simple by mentioning the things at least they are aware off. But they will never do because they won't get high bids if they do so. They just want more money even if the regular members (like me) or other buyers have to suffer a lot.
    Copart is discouraging people especially traders from buying as they never proved to be helpful, they just behave like trappers. They try to get more bids/money through these tactics but they losing bids/money on the other side by losing regular buyers like me.
    I have 2 cars currently parked, both have gearbox issues, both came from copart. Also had 2 cars previously, both mileage clocked, sold them as spares repair. We do not expect full mechanical report with every car from copart but at least the things which are visible and they are or can be aware off easily.
    Now I have to start with other salvage auctions who are not dishonest like copart.

  • Ir
      17th of Nov, 2016
    0 Votes

    Copart are operating like robber barons of the middle ages --basically get the money fist and argue --or get the resident bulldog to refuse all attempts to be treated fairly--afterwards--The amount of complaints it can only be a matter of time before trading standards step in regardless of the ludicrously one sided set of trading guidelines the parasites get you to sign up for --which all boil down in essence too---COPART HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY--COPART DOES NOT RETURN MONEY --no matter what devious and nefarious scam they might be operating to catch out the unwary source of money you are to them--in short a raving take on being run like a criminal enterprise --In America they use the RICO laws to deal with organised crime --which is basically exactly what it is--over here we have to rely on watchdog and dispatches and programs of that ilk --If you are even considering joining this confidence trick being presented as a business opportunity--then please --Drop your money into a blind box instead or give it to you children to enjoy --the sole aim of these people is to make you a victim of their avarice---

  • St
      11th of Dec, 2016
    0 Votes

    Dear Sir,

    My name is Stanko Srejic lot 38996546 and I have been your loyal customer for a very long time and never had any issues with the vehicles bought from you. I am writing today to express my disappointment with your service at Westbury site. I went to collect the vehicle yesterday that I have won on 2nd December.The vehicle was advertised as working, but to my surprise the engine was broken. I am neither a trader or mechanic, but a private person who buys the cars for my private use. I expect a new family member to arrive and that is why I bid on this vehicle. I would never consider buying a car with a broken engine because I am a family man with no funds or time to repair it. Unfortunately the description of the car was not trustworthy Coparts name as there was no indication of any engine or mechanical issues. The total cost of the car was £812, that seems to be ridiculous for a car with a broken engine. The staff at Westbury site were not helpful to solve my problem. I paid insurance for this vehicle, petrol to get to that site, i live over 2.5 h drive from Wesbury, as well as cost of payable phone call to your management personnel. I did not collect the car as this did not match the description a car that I bid on. I was advised by yard manager to ask for authorization of cancellation this sale. I need to get my funds as soon as possible as I need to buy a reliable car for my family with no delay. I am so disappointed about your service and whole experience at Westbury site that I want to close my account with you as well.
    At your web page states still to pay, eventhough i have paid in full.
    Could you please deal with my problem and cancel the transaction as I need my money as soon as possible.

    Kind regards,

    Stanko Srejic

  • Az
      18th of Aug, 2017
    0 Votes

    I bought a car on 11 Aug 17 . It was cat u car with minor dents and scratches and when the came then I get to know that half of the gear box is in the boot . I called copart about this problem and told them that there was nothing in the discription that car has mechanical issue or gear box is broken they listen to my complaint and refuse to do any help or refund and said read terms and condition you should inspect the car before bidding.I told them that you always mention mechanical or gear problem why don't you mention in this case, they said sorry and do what you can do .

  • Di
      21st of Aug, 2017
    0 Votes

    I bought a bmw car from Copart which was advertised as a Cat.U unrecorded. I had it repaired and when I insured it the insurance company told me it was a Cat.B breaker and should not be on the road.I contacted Copart by phone and was told that they would look into it. it took them 4 months before they rang and said they would have to buy it back. I had to email all my receipts for repairs, which I did. then I got an email saying that they were only acting as agents and they were not responsible. They gave me the name and address of the company they were acting for and said I would have to contact them for a refund.I only have a receipt from Copart and not this other company as the manager was quick to point out and he also said he sold the car to copart as they paid him, not me.i contacted trading standards, the environment agency, DVLA and the citizens advice. I am still no further forward. Copart is blanking all emails, letters and phone calls. I have a very expensive car(10s of thousands of pounds) stood on the drive that I cant do anything with as I don't have a breakers licence to break it for spares, I cant use it as it should not be on the road so no-one will insure it.DVLA will not issue a V5 log book for it. even though it has got an MOT and drives beautifully. any advice would be gratefully appreciated.please be very careful when buying from Copart. Copart cant keep getting away with this. as stated above in other comments Copart are only after your money and don't want to know about any problems you may have afterwards.they just cover their own backs with their terms and conditions.

  • C2
      16th of Sep, 2017
    0 Votes

    15th September 2017
    _______________________
    ALL IS NOT LOST AS THERE IS LEGAL PROTECTION AGAINST COPART MEMBERS WHOM ARE CONNED UNDER THERE FALSE DISCRIPTIONS AND THEY THEN USE 8.1 & 8.2 OF THERE EXCLUSION CLAUSES AS A SHEILD, BUT IN REALITY IS LITTLE MORE THAN A LICEANCE THEY THINK TO BE ABLE TO GIVE FALSE DISCRIPTIONS BE IT VERBAL, WRITTEN OR DIGITAL FORM AND GET AWAY WITH IT THEY THOUGHT!

    Buyers beware there Standard T&C'S are flawed under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1967 when it comes to discriptions and imformation further provided by them be it Verbal, Written or Digital form. Please have sight of the following under 8.1 * 8.2 of there Standard T&C’S been there Favourite term they Remind there members of when a claim or complaint is submitted and there General Generic responce.

    “We expressly disclaim the accuracy or completeness of any and/or all information provided to you regarding Lots whether provided in written, verbal or digital image form (“Lot Information”).”
    For copart to be able to establish that part under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1967, regard has to be had to the following, under Standard Law independent of there T&C’S:

    In an agreement between two parties acting in the course of business, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 does apply in order to prevent a party breaching an agreement and thereafter seeking to exclude liability for breach of contract on the basis of an exclusion clause. The questionof whether or not a party seeking to rely on the clause can rely on it in law is one of reasonableness.

    Section 3 of the act states:

    3. liability arising in contract.

    (1) This section applies as between contracting parties where one of them deals as consumer or on the other’s written standard terms of business.

    (2) As against the party, the other cannot by reference to any contract term-

    (a) When himself in breach of contract, exclude or restrict any liability of his in respect of the breach: or

    (b) Claim to be entitled-

    (i)to render a contractual performance sunstantially different from that which was reasonable expected of him, or

    (ii)in respect of the whole or any part of his contractual obligation, to render no performance at all, except in so far as (in any of the cases mentioned above in this subsection) the contract term satisfies the requirement of the reasonableness.
    Accordingly, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 does apply in business to business where one party uses written standard terms and conditions. an exclusion clause provides a shhield of sort to a pros[ective Dendant. It can be a complete defence, but whether or not the exclusion clause can be used at all is dependant on the Court deciding that the term meetes the requirement of reasonablenes.

    Section 11 of the UCTA 1977 defines the requirement of reasonableness.
    The "reasonableness" test.

    (1) In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness for the purposes of this Part of this Act, section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and section 3 of the Misrepresentation act (Northern Ireland) 1967 is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable to be included having regard to the circumstances which were or ought reasonably to have been, Knownto or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.

    (2) In determining for the purpose of section 6 or 7 above whether a contract term satifies the requirement of reasonableness regard shall be had in particular to the matters specified in Schedule 2 to this Act, but this subsection does not prevent the court or arbitrator from holding in accordance with any rule of law that a term which purports to exclude or restrict any relevent liability is not a term of the contract.

    (3) In relation to a notice (not being a notice having contractual effect), the requirement of reasonableness under this Act is that it should be fair and reasonable to allow reliance on it, having regard to all the circumstances obtaning when the liability arose or (but for the notice). would have arisen.

    (4) Where by reference to a contract term or notice a person seeks to restrict liability to a specified sum of money, and the question arises (under this or any other Act) whether the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness, regard shall be had in particular (not without prejudice to subsection (2) above in the case of contract terms) to-
    (a) the resources which he could expect to be available to him for the purpose of meeting the liability should it arise and
    (b) how far it was open to him to cover himself by insurance.

    (5) It is for those claiming that a contract term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness to show that it does.
    Schedule 2 of UCTA 1977 sets out guidelines on those matters to which the court will have regard when weighing up whether it is reasonable to allow the proposed defendant to rely on the exclusion clause. They include, importantly, consideration of the strength of the bargaining positions of the parties relative to each other, and also whether the customer Knew or ought reasonably to have Known the existence and the extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties).

    (6) UCTA 1977 can also apply to cases involving Misrepresentation, pursuant to Section 8 of the Act. That section amends section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 to state as follows. (Again, the court will first address the question of whether or not it is reasonable to allow the defending party to rely on the exclusion clause).

    In any prospective claim a Copart member brings against copart for (1) Breach of Contract (2) Fraudulent, Negligent or innocent Misrepresentation, it will be for Copart to prove that the exclusion clause meets the reasonableness test, which they would be Highly unlikely to prove wereby the court will find the exclusion clause does not apply and the claimant can go on to prove and win his claim.

    So to All you Copart member whom have taken time out to write in the forum your Experiances with Copart I can agree it is Exactly having had the same experiances with them. Don’t let is rest there and get fobbed off with there nonsence Terms and Conditions, the Above on the Law is how you can overcome there T&C’S in a court of law of if you copy and paste it and send to them with the basis of your complaint and this is to be done after at General and Regional manager level has Failed, you can then Formally do a Letter of Claim and the letter Must be marked letter of claim, this can be done by email with your member number lot number of issue.

    Misrepresentation
    (1) In the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the following is substituted for section 3-
    Avoidance of provision excluding liability for misrepresentation.
    If a contract contains a term which would exclude or restrict-
    (a) Any liability to which a party to a contract maybe subject by reason of any misrepresentation made by him before the contract was made; or
    (b) Any remedy available to another party to the contract by reason of such a misrepresentation, that term shall be of no effect except in so far as it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness as stated in section 11(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977; and it is for those claiming that the term satisfies that requirement to show that it does.

    There Exclusinon clauses are little more than a shield that would Not stand up in a Civil court of Law dependant upon the circumstances of an issue.

    There buyer Protection Pledge is little more than a sales tool that reads good to the untrained eye, but no claim could Ever be succesful because of the Standard T&C'S exclusion which runs alongside of the Pledge and in the pledge under the limitations clauses it actually excludes all of the liability of copart that there offering in anyevent if its read Carefully under the pledge terms, then you have to read the Standard T&C'S which exclude all aspect of the pledge under 8.1.

    It would be for Copart to prove that there exclusion clauses meets the reasonableness test, pursuant to Section 11 (5) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

    Memebers whom are conned by Copart should Not take it at face value by there response reminding you of there T&C’S, do take independent Legal advice, as you would be surprised.
    Looking at the forum of Complaints they out weigh the Very low number of good forum on a scale of bad verses good of at leat 95% of which is not a good indication of service offered.
    When you have a look at the independent Bad complaints against individual members it strikes a simular story that cannot of been made up and Alarm bells should start to ring.

    Salvage was good until copart took over and Cornned the market. They consider themselves to be an auction of salvage vehicles, but I don’t agree with that as they buy vehicles for Resale, they are an Salvage agent to insurance companies so they do no a lot more about what they are selling in terms of Actual damage to vehicles.
    ______________________________________________________

    I would Strongley suggest that Reader reading a Responce from copart marketing team take No notice of there responce they are what the word states: MARKETING, that is there jog to water down Reviews that there members have wrote not favourable to there business.
    I have read Bad review within the Uk, America and other countries that are with copart, and all complaints have the Same pattern and it is amazeing in the 21st Century how they are allowed to get awy with it.
    a mate of mine was a sub contractor collecting vehicles for them and his Exact words were copart dont give a dime they work on volumes of vehicle collect/sales and All there interested in is turnover, they no cars come in with more damage than claimed in there discription but that dont make it known in the discription and i have won a vehicle amongst many in the past that has turned out just like that.
    Copart no alot more about damage to vehicles when they come into ther prospective yards. On inventory they check evey part of the car that is visable for damage and mark any sign of damage on a sheet diagram, but they do not disclose any damage noted at auction and try and get around it by silly damage codes given and there terms and conditions.

  • Pa
      11th of Apr, 2018
    0 Votes

    Victory at long last court has declared copart exclusion clauses do not meet the reasonableness test under section 11 (1) of the un fair contract terms act 1977

    In a civil claim against gary alexander - v - copart uk ltd at the edmonton county court in london case number (d7qz86fa). on thursday 5th april 2018, before deputy district judge perry.
    Gary the claimant succeded in an action brought against copart for neglegent misrepresentation against a vehicle purchased on there auction website.

    Coparts wisbech yard had misdiscribed the amount of owners the vehicle had it been a 2 owner vehicle but they stated in a telephone conversation the number of owners shown on the log book to be (1) when infact it also had a previous owner which made it a 2 owners vehicle.

    Copart as per usual relied on there exclusion clause 8.1 of there terms and conditions excluding liability the key parts which reads:

    8.1 all lots we offer for sale are sold “as is where is”. “as is where is” sales are sales without any express or implied warranty (including without limitation any warranty of fitness for a particular purpose or of satisfactory quality). we expressly disclaim the accuracy or completeness of any and/or all information provided to you regarding lots whether provided in written, verbal or digital image form (“lot information”). lot information is provided for convenience only. you agree that you will not rely on lot information in deciding whether or how much to bid on any lot. lot information includes without limitation: year, make, model, condition, damage amount, damage type, roadworthiness, drivability, accessories, mileage, odometer readings, vehicle identification numbers, title, repairs needed, repair cost, repair history, title history, service history and total loss history. we expressly disclaim any and all representations (whether written or verbal), warranties and guarantees regarding the lots we offer for sale. it is your sole responsibility to ascertain, confirm, research, inspect and/or investigate to your satisfaction the lots we offer for sale and any and all lot information prior to deciding whether and how much you wish to bid on any lot.

    5.4 of there terms and condition exclusion clause they also relied on which reads reads:

    5.4 to the fullest extent permitted by law, under no circumstances (including negligence) will we be liable for any special, incidental or consequential damages or loss of profits that result from or are related to (i) the sale, distribution, use of or inability to use any lot or (ii) your or any authorised bidder’s use of or inability to use the services, even if we had been previously or subsequently advised of the possibility of such damages or losses. as a trade member, you agree that the provisions of this clause 5 are fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

    Not sure how copart could of really expected any court to of considered that clause in itself to of been a reasonable one. were misrepresentation is proved.in any proved claim for misrepresentation as a result of that at law, they are entitled to losses including loss of profit as a result of the tort of deceit.

    The law on - excluding liability for misrepresentation

    Any term of a contract which excludes liability for misrepresentation or restricts the remedy available is subject to the test of reasonableness. see section 3 of the misrepresentation act 1967, as amended by s8 and section 11 (1) unfair contract terms act 1977.

    (1) in the misrepresentation act 1967, the following is substituted for section 3-

    Avoidance of provision excluding liability for misrepresentation.
    If a contract contains a term which would exclude or restrict-

    (a) any liability to which a party to a contract maybe subject by reason of any misrepresentation made by him before the contract was made; or
    Any remedy available to another party to the contract by reason of such a misrepresentation, that term shall be of no effect except in so far as it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness as stated in section 11 (1) of the unfair contract terms act 1977; and it is for those claiming that the term satisfies that requirement to show that it does.

    Weeks before the hearing this is an email responce from copart solicitors my brother asking them to reconsider settling the claim.

    Wed 28/02/2018 09:18

    Dear mr alexander

    We have clearly addressed "your notion" that our terms and conditions do not meet the reasonableness test under ucta in our defence.

    We do not intend to enter into any further dialogue on this point prior to the hearing of the claim

    For the avoidance of doubt, our position remains unchanged from that set out in our defence.

    Yours sincerely
    Carrie taylor
    Solicitor
    Copart

    This is how cock sure they were, that they were gonna succeed and win the claim, "there solicitors". well the claimants "notion" was right after all, so many readers would say idiots maybe they should of continued the "dialogue" on this point before the hearing in the hope the penny would of dropped there end. importantly it is to be noted gary tried relentlesly to resolve issues with copart before the issue of proceedings, after the issue of proceeding as per just one of the emails above referanced, and at court mediation stage before the matter was listed for the hearing, copart wouldnt agree to his proposals to settle the claim at that stage for just over £400. I would add as fair comment ("employ proper solicitors"). to advise properly.

    Copart was unable to establish there exclusion clauses did satisfy the test in court, infact there solicitors were silent on this point not surprising other than what they pleaded in there defence, which really stood for nothing and certainly wasnt going to begin to satisfy the test.

    The judge found that coparts customer services representative had misrepresented the contents of the log book on number of owner

    The judges exact words were he found gary the claimants account to be more credible than that of coparts customer services representative.
    Because of this finding by the judge he went on to consider the above exclusion clauses if they met the un reasonbleness test under section 11 (1) (5) of the unfair contract terms act 1977 and had no dificulty again in finding in favour of the claimant that coparts exclusion clauses do not meet the test.

    The judges exact words were copart been found to of commited misrepresentation, they cannot then seek to hide behind there exclusion clauses.in addition the judge went on to say he did not hear one bit of evidance from copart in court at the hearing of them defending the un reasonableness test that there exclusion clauses does meet the test.

    Copart further argued that the claimant should of verfied the imformation that was given to him by virtue of doing a hpi check before placing a bid. the court was against them also on this point as he found it was not reasonable to expect him to of done this post winning the actual vehicle at auction and wouldnt of been cost effective so in essence even this clause they cannot relie on going forward and are responsible for any adverse imformation on hpi not disclosed in there auction discription which includes incorrect total loss catogorys and previous total loss imformation. further more incorrect damage type given at auction.

    The judge awarded damages comprising of "loss profit" just short of £1000.00. ordered that the claimant court issue and hearing fee be paid by copart and awarded the claimant witness attendance cost of £95, grand total awarded by the court was just short of £1, 400.00..

    It is to be noted that copart were legally represented at the hearing by there in house solicitor. gary was un represented at the hearing by any solicitor as the claim was listed under the small claims track and he was merely represented by his brother as a lay representative.

    The funny thing about this was gary tried to resolve this in house with copart with them paying compensation of £50 which they declined. any compitant solicitor would of advised they should of settled on that basis, but copart insisted they had a defence and took the risk to defend the claim and lost.

    Now they have to change there exclusion clauses in there terms and conditions now that the court has ruled they do not satisfy the "reasonableness" test under section 11 (1) (5) of the un fair contract terms act 1977.

    It is to be noted that coparts legal cost in defending the claim, they supplied in advance of the hearing there cost schedule totalling £800 they would of been making an application to the court had they of won the claim for those cost against gary, but in all as it went against them actually cost them adding the £800 to the award gary got in round figures £2, 200.00.

    A very expensive day it was for copart and the car only cost in total just over 2k.£50 was coparts down fall.

    So in essence any form of misleading advertisment, misrepresentation or imformation given by copart then there exclusion clauses wont be a defence they can rely on. further more they are prohibited under

    (the business protection from misleading marketing regulations 2008) in particular:

    Prohibition of advertising which misleads traders

    (1) advertising which is misleading is prohibited.
    (2) advertising is misleading which —

    (a) in "any way", including its presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the traders to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches; and by reason of its deceptive nature, is likely to affect their economic behaviour.

    It would be a criminal offence for copart or any other business to breach this particular act of parliment, which is policed by trading standards and its they a victim reports this.

    Even on that legislation there 8.1 exclusion clause wouldnt be a defence

    Note: to all readers and exisiting or fourth comming disgruntled members of copart, should they still relie on there exclusion clauses in avoiding liability for any form of misrepresentation of a vehicle, then copy/paste this review and send to them, this should get them to sort things out.

  • Sa
      8th of Aug, 2018
    0 Votes

    @Paul Alexander Hello mate you seem to know your stuff was just after some help - last week i just brought a car from copart cat s - as didnt have personal space the car was dropped of on road i went to post office to tax the car - they refused to tax the car advising me to call dvla and do some more checks- after speaking to dvla and doin some check i have found out the car is not a cat s it is a cat B.

    I called up copart they advised they will look into this now in the meantime i couldnt tax the car it has now been clamped by dvla - also they have sold me a cat B car what can i do thanks

  • Ar
      16th of Oct, 2018
    +1 Votes

    @Paul Alexander Well done
    Im currently going through a issue.
    Paid 9500 for a unrecorded which is a cat c.
    Do you feel taking them to court will resolve this under the same guise as your scenario?

  • Ke
      3rd of Aug, 2018
    0 Votes

    I bought a car from copart Wolverhampton a 2014 b-max ecoboost with my wifes hard earned savings as it was for her. on the well studied pictures and description the car looked to need front bumper refix, maybe radiators and possible minor damage to alternator ext.i have spent over 1000 to date on parts and still need more . the engine completely smashed behond repair the block having servere damage, the impact was so bad it should have been cat b without a doubt. the car had been made up ( make up mary ) to like like easy cat d repair. the seller wich is insurance company ( doubt it was them ) or copart yes it was them badly fitted a o/s wing jigged the car pulling the chassie straight using heat as well. welded the chassie with what lookd like pigion poo strapped the fron bumper back on with zip ties and hid the cat b damage. they refuse to help and emailed me telling, me not to get in touch with last ownrs, an admission of guilt. stuck with car and can only take a loss from this con.i have solicitor involved and will contact previous owners and insurance companys. I havew an ex worker and one still employed at wolves copart backing me.

  • Su
      10th of Sep, 2018
    0 Votes
    Copart - Service not giving approval
    Mumbai
    India

    If not able to give approval so stop giving me hoop

    Regards
    Surdarshan yadav

  • Ar
      12th of Nov, 2018
    0 Votes

    🔺🔺🔺 WARNING - Buy at your own risk... cars may be listed as UNRECORDED but even if it transpires after that the vehicle is a Cat C/D - S/N COPART WILL HIDE BEHIND THEIR T’s & C’s in order not to refund you and take the car back and leave you- the innocent consumer who has purchased the car in good faith as well as PAYING COPART A SERVICE FEE, LOADING FEE ETC to take the loss and accept it!
    THEY TURN OVER MULTI MILLIONS OF £’s but cannot even admit their error even with a long term account holder and go back to the source that entered the vehicle into the auction and deal with them!
    AGAIN A MASSIVE RED FLAG AND A WARNING ⚠️
    DO NOT TAKE THEIR LISTINGS OR INFO GIVEN ON VEHICLES TO MEAN ANYTHING COS PEOPLE ARE ENTERING RECORDED VEHICLES THAT HAVEN’T BEEN UPDATED ON HPI AND SELL IT AS UNRECORDED AND ONCE YOU BUY AND GET THE V5 AND IT TRANSPIRES THE VEHICLE IS NOW RECORDED COPART WILL HIDE BEHIND THEIR T’s & C’s AND NOT RECTIFY THEIR ERROR OR TAKE BACK THE VEHICLE THAT THEY MIS-SELL TO THEIR INNOCENT MEMBERS!!

  • Li
      11th of Dec, 2018
    0 Votes
    Copart - Forklift employees
    12167 Arrow Route
    Rancho Cucamonga
    California
    United States

    So I pay a gate fee that is $59 dollars. Guys out here are always asking for a bribe, I deny and they get furious and make me wait for hours. This is not only the issue with me but with many. My experience today was just horrible, it was pouring rain nonstop and they took over two hours just to pick up my paper when they hardly had any work. Bad.

Post your comment