Warning for anyone considering purchasing a used vehicle (flood damage)

[vintagetoppsguy]

A few days ago, I started noticing a bad vibration in the front end of my car (Toyota Camry). I looked at the tires and the front two looked like they needed replaced. However, I didn’t want to replace them and still have the same problem, so I took it to a shop to have it checked out to make sure that was indeed the problem.

After a quick test drive and visual inspection, the service advisor came in to the waiting room and told me that I needed new tires and an alignment. Then he told me there was something he needed to show me under the car. We went out into the shop where my car was up on a rack.

He asked me if I knew the car was a flood damaged car (probably Sandy). I told him that I purchased the car used about 7 months ago and that I did not know it was a flood damaged car. Then he took me underneath the car to show me all the damage. Everything, and I mean everything. was rusted underneath. The service advisor told me that it was the worst flood damage he’d ever seen and that it looked like it had set under water for an extended period of time.

He told me that even if I replaced the front two tires, I couldn’t do an alignment on it because the parts that are used to align it are completely rusted together. I told him I would take it back to the dealership to see what they were willing to do. The repair shop was nice and didn’t even charge me for looking at it.

On Saturday, I went back to the dealership that I bought it from and they were willing to let me trade it back in, but we were so far apart on the numbers that we couldn’t work a deal. I got home a did a little internet research and found out that it is not against the law to sell a flood damaged car, however it is against the law to sell it and not disclose the fact. It was never disclosed to me. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I’m entitled to more compensation than the dealership was willing to give me.

I am going to contact an attorney this morning to at least find out what (if any) legal rights I have after 7 months. Does anybody have a similar experience buying a flood damaged car?

I also hope this serves as a warning to anybody considering purchasing a used vehicle that they should have it inspected by a third party for this type of thing. Unfortunately, I didn’t. From what I read on-line, a lot of Sandy flood cars are making their way into dealerships across the country. Sometimes, the damage does not show up on CarFax either (it didn’t on mine). Mine had a clean CarFax report. CarFax can only report what is reported to them. On a side note, I went ahead and replaced the front two tires yesterday to at least make it safe to drive. That did get rid of the vibration (although it still pulls very slightly as I could not do an alignment). Funny thing, but the car drives and handles quite nice and I wouldn’t have known it was a flood damaged car (at least not at this point) unless I was told. However, I know I will have some major problems in the future if I continue to drive it.

[Leon]

I think these might be state laws so they could vary. I believe in Texas you have to disclose certain damage and if it is bad enough, there might be a salvage title. I would think you definitely have some actionable cause against the dealership for not disclosing the damage. However, I don't know the law so am not positive. I would be checking into it the way you are David.

[steve B]

Yeah, not sure about TX, but in MA it's worth pursuing. Even stuff that's not even close to what you've got has to be disclosed.

I worked for a dealership that had a couple cars they'd sold to a taxi company. The taxi place added the roof signs and never paid so they were repossessed and sent back to the dealer. Faux convertible top added to cover the roof hole from the taxi sign (it was the late 80's, so not as out of style as it sounds.) They didn't want to take a loss so they ended up having them around for something like 2 years. Eventually one got sold when a new manager came in who was willing to sell them at a loss.

Except they never disclosed that it had been a taxi for 3 months.
The buyer found out when he went to buy an extended warranty from a 3rd party.
And sued.
The it came back again, only instead of being on the books at the 9000 it had been before, now it was on the books at 27000 Yep, unfair and deceptive business practices, 3x damages. They should have just offered him a new one when he first complained, but they decided to fight it. NOT smart.

I think that's probably a record price for an 87 Reliant.......

Steve B