The Mercedes-Benz bought for 3.07 million was identified as a refurbished car with a meter? The car dealer questioned the falsification of the appraisal report, and the appraisal agency claimed that it was responsible for the authenticity

Xiaoxiang Morning News

2024-05-25 17:29Posted on the official account of Hunan Xiaoxiang Morning News

A few days ago, Mr. Fu, a consumer, reported to Xiaoxiang Morning News that he bought a Mercedes-Benz car from Hunan Dehong Automobile Sales and Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hunan Dehong Company), "including the car model, consumption tax and other expenses, a total of 3.07 million yuan was spent." 10 days after picking up the car on the highway when driving, found that the car frequently had braking problems, and after communicating with Hunan Dehong Company to change the car to no avail, they were in two third-party appraisal agencies for vehicle identification, the appraisal report showed that 'the car has not only been repaired and refurbished, but the mileage of the car table is not the real mileage'".

On May 24, Hunan Dehong Company responded to a reporter from Xiaoxiang Morning News, saying that the total price of the Mercedes-Benz purchased by Mr. Fu was 2.36 million yuan, not 3.07 million yuan. At the same time, Long Huiyong, legal counsel of Hunan Dehong Company, pointed out that the company has only received a vehicle appraisal report, and the signature of the appraiser in the report is a false signature, and the content of the report is not recognized. Hunan Dehong Company also pointed out that, according to the evidence it had so far, after the vehicle was delivered to Mr. Fu, Mr. Fu went to a 4S shop to alter the relevant parts of the vehicle, resulting in an abnormal mileage of the vehicle.

According to this, a reporter from Xiaoxiang Morning News asked Mr. Fu for verification, and Mr. Fu admitted that he had sent the vehicle to a 4S store for testing, but denied that he had colluded with others to modify the parameters of the vehicle.

Subsequently, the Xiaoxiang Morning News reporter contacted the person in charge of the appraisal company Hunan Ruilai Motor Vehicle Appraisal and Evaluation Co., Ltd., the person in charge of the company said that according to its appraisal standards, the appraisal report is valid enough to be signed and sealed, although the report is signed by colleagues, but it is not a false report referred to by Hunan Dehong Company, and is willing to be responsible for the authenticity of the report.

The Xiaoxiang Morning News reporter also learned from the market supervision and management institute in the jurisdiction where Hunan Dehong Company is located that the market supervision department has now filed a case for investigation of the consumer complaint and is re-entrusting a third-party appraisal agency to identify the vehicles involved.

The Mercedes-Benz bought for 3.07 million was identified as a refurbished car with a meter? The car dealer questioned the falsification of the appraisal report, and the appraisal agency claimed that it was responsible for the authenticity

The dispute over whether the vehicle involved was refurbished

Previously, according to Mr. Fu, he said that he bought a Mercedes-Benz G63 from Hunan Dehong Company at the end of 2023, "and spent a total of 3.07 million yuan before and after, including 2.36 million yuan for the car, more than 230,000 yuan in consumption tax, more than 200,000 yuan in purchase fees, more than 20,000 yuan in insurance premiums and 250,000 yuan in loan interest." ”

Mr. Fu said that when he picked up the car on January 24, 2024, he found that there was "severe wear" on the left front threshold of the car on the spot, and when he was driving on the highway about 10 days after picking up the car, there were several times of automatic emergency braking, and there were also reversing brake failures after getting off the highway. Mr. Fu said that he immediately reported the situation to Hunan Dehong Company, asked for a refund and returned the car, but the other party refused, and then complained to Hunan Dehong Company to the Xianglong Market Supervision and Management Office of Changsha County Market Supervision and Administration Bureau.

Mr. Fu said that he then found an appraisal agency recommended by the staff of the market supervision and management department, and the other party recommended him to go to Hunan Ruilai Motor Vehicle Appraisal and Evaluation Co., Ltd. for appraisal, and Hunan Ruilai issued an appraisal report on April 24. According to the report: "There is a color change and refurbishment of the vehicle parts, there is a paint polishing treatment at the threshold, there are potential safety hazards in the continued use of the vehicle, and there is a difference between the displayed mileage and the fault information record and storage, and it is not excluded that the vehicle mileage data has been modified." After that, Mr. Fu found a second third-party appraisal agency, Jiangxi Chengbao Motor Vehicle Appraisal and Evaluation Co., Ltd., which issued an appraisal report on May 21 showing that the car's "mileage displayed on the surface is not the real mileage".

On May 24, Long Huiyong, the legal counsel of Hunan Dehong Company, responded to a reporter from Xiaoxiang Morning News, saying that the situation described by Mr. Fu did not match the actual situation. Long Huiyong said that Mr. Fu claimed to have spent 3.07 million yuan to buy a car, but the actual total price of the vehicle was only 2.36 million yuan; Mr. Fu reported that the "severe wear" at the threshold at the time of delivery was actually caused by paint polishing problems or transportation on the way, and the two parties had reached an agreement on this issue at the time of delivery, and the two parties agreed to reduce the total price of the vehicle from 2.38 million yuan to 2.36 million yuan as compensation for the paint problem.

Long Huiyong also said that Mr. Fu's repeated automatic emergency braking and brake failure of the vehicle were obviously contrary to common sense, "Since there is a problem with the brakes, how can it continue to drive for so long?" Long Huiyong also said that the evidence they have now has shown that after the company delivered the vehicle to Mr. Fu, Mr. Fu went to a 4S store to modify the relevant parts of the vehicle, resulting in an abnormal mileage of the vehicle, and the company has reported this situation to the relevant departments, and the relevant departments are investigating this situation.

In response to the situation described by Hunan Dehong Company, Mr. Fu said that he had indeed sent the vehicle to a 4S store for testing after it was abnormal, but denied that he had deliberately altered the relevant parts with others to cause the abnormal mileage of the vehicle.

The dispute over the authenticity of the appraisal report involved

Long Huiyong told the Xiaoxiang Morning News reporter that Hunan Dehong Company did not recognize the vehicle appraisal results provided by Mr. Fu. Moreover, the company only received a copy of the appraisal report provided by the market supervision, which was an appraisal report made by Hunan Ruilai Motor Vehicle Appraisal and Evaluation Co., Ltd. entrusted by Mr. Fu, and the signature of the appraiser in the report was a false signature, and the company did not recognize the legality and authenticity of the appraisal results of the report. Long Huiyong also said that after verification by the company, the appraiser was not recommended by the market supervision and management department, and Mr. Fu did not negotiate with the company before going to the appraisal.

The Xiaoxiang Morning News reporter noticed that there was a certain difference between the appraisal report that Mr. Fu showed to the reporter and the report he provided to the market supervision department, and the appraisal report he showed to the reporter only had the seal of the appraiser and no signature, while the report provided to the market supervision department also had the signature of the appraiser in addition to the seal, and the signatories were "Chen Zhuo" and "Yang Hong".

In response to the fact that Hunan Dehong Company claimed that the signature of the appraisal personnel of the report was a "false signature", the Xiaoxiang Morning News reporter also contacted the appraisal agency involved, Hunan Ruilai Motor Vehicle Appraisal and Evaluation Co., Ltd., for verification.

Chen Zhuo, the legal representative of Hunan Ruilai Motor Vehicle Appraisal and Evaluation Co., Ltd., told the Xiaoxiang Morning News reporter that Mr. Fu had indeed entrusted the company to conduct vehicle appraisal before, and the appraisal report was indeed issued by the company. Chen Zhuo said that according to the appraisal standard, the appraisal report only needs to be signed and not signed, but the company's colleagues mistakenly thought that the appraisal report needed to be signed, so they signed it on their behalf. Chen Zhuo believes that the report cannot be determined to be a false report because the appraiser's signature is a proxy signature, and although the company is not an appraisal agency recommended by the Market Supervision and Administration Bureau, it has legal appraisal qualifications. The report involved is an independent appraisal report, and the company is responsible for its authenticity. "The appraisal is based on the existing situation and the general situation reflected by the customer, using data to speak, seeking truth from facts." Chen Zhuo said.

At the same time, the Xiaoxiang Morning News reporter learned from the Xianglong Market Supervision and Management Institute of the Changsha County Market Supervision Bureau that the institute had previously coordinated the complaint many times but could not reach an agreement, and had made a decision to terminate the mediation on March 26, 2024. At the same time, the institute has filed a case for investigation of this consumer complaint, and is currently organizing a third-party agency to conduct further investigation on the identification of the vehicle involved in the case and other circumstances.

Lawyer: Both parties can jointly entrust an appraisal agency to reduce disputes arising from appraisal results

In response to this matter, the Xiaoxiang Morning News reporter consulted Fu Jian, director of Henan Zejin Law Firm, and Liu Yan, member of the Management Committee, senior partner and deputy director of Hunan United Venture Law Firm, to analyze the three major focus issues in detail.

Focus 1: If consumers question the quality of the goods, do they need to be recognized by the merchant to find a third-party testing agency for identification?

Fu Jian: Consumers have the right to entrust a third-party testing agency to conduct appraisal of the goods, but the merchant may not recognize the appraisal results that are unfavorable to them.

Liu Yan: Consumers unilaterally seek a third-party appraisal agency for appraisal, and from the perspective of legal practice, it is generally not recommended. Because the appraisal company may not have sufficient qualifications, or it may destroy the integrity of the evidence due to its own appraisal, the appraisal report issued by the merchant in this case may not be recognized, and it is very likely that it will not be accepted. Consumers should try to stop moving, using the vehicle, and find the quality supervision department or the people's court and other such public authorities to entrust the appraisal, such as entrusting a qualified agency to test, the report can be submitted to the administrative law enforcement department as a basis for law enforcement, can also be submitted to the court as evidence for filing a case, but this does not exempt the administrative law enforcement department and the court from initiating the official appraisal.

Focus 2: Does the test report need to be signed by the inspector? Can a signature replace a signature? Does the report have legal effect if it is signed on behalf of the applicant?

Fu Jian: The test report needs to be signed and sealed to indicate the authenticity of the test and the main responsibility, and the signature and seal have the same legal effect. The report will be found to be flawed in the appraisal report, which usually does not affect the overall validity of the report, and can be corrected at a later stage, but this will also become the focus of disputes between the parties.

Liu Yan: The appraisal report must be stamped by the appraisal agency and signed by the appraiser, if there is no appraiser's signature, the appraiser's signature is required. If the appraiser recognizes that the appraisal report was issued by him, he or she may retroactively confirm the signature that is not his own signature, and this will not affect the validity of the appraisal report.

Focus 3: How should consumers protect their rights if they encounter problems with the quality of goods?

Fu Jian: Consumers should communicate with the merchant and retain evidence at the first time, and if they need to be appraised, they can jointly entrust an appraisal agency with the other party to conduct an appraisal, or file a lawsuit, and they can also submit an appraisal request to the court during the lawsuit. If there is indeed a quality problem in the vehicle, but the merchant conceals it and fails to inform it, it is a consumer fraud in nature, and it needs to bear corresponding responsibilities according to the provisions of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law. If the consumer colludes with others to alter the relevant parts of the vehicle, resulting in an abnormal mileage of the vehicle, it is a malicious claim, and he needs to bear civil liabilities such as apologizing and compensating to the merchant, and in serious cases, he will be suspected of extortion.

Liu Yan: If the final result is that the merchant refurbishes the vehicle and adjusts the meter to sell it as a new car, it is suspected of fraud and needs to fulfill the corresponding responsibilities; If the final result is that the consumer adjusts the meter privately, but his demand is to return the car for a refund, and there is no "lion opening his mouth", it is suspected of contract fraud or breach of contract, and it cannot be determined that it constitutes extortion. If the amount claimed by the consumer for refund includes loan interest of 250,000 yuan, but the loan interest is only partially generated or has not yet been generated, the court may not accept this part of the refund claim.

Xiaoxiang Morning News reporter Cao Wei Duan Yingqi

View original image 201K