(a) The vehicle was not of acceptable quality.

(b) The vehicle was not fit for purpose.

(c) The vehicle was not free from defects.

(d) The vehicle was not what was promised.

1. The applicant also alleged unconscionable conduct, misleading and deceptive conduct and alleged that services were not provided with due care and skill.
2. The following facts were alleged:

(a) On 29 September 2023, the applicant inspected the vehicle and test drove it. A deposit was paid that same day. These facts were not contested.

(b) The following matters are relevant to what was alleged to have occurred on 29 September 2025, some of which was contested:

(i) According to the applicant, when he drove the vehicle on 29 September 2025, he thought that the vehicle had slow acceleration.

(ii) It was not contested that the applicant asked the representative of the respondent (who was the same person who represented the respondent and gave evidence at the hearing) whether the vehicle had been 'mechanically checked and it has been confirmed that there are no mechanical faults' ('mechanical check representation'). The representative stated in evidence that he said that it had been so checked.

(iii) The applicant alleged that he asked the representative if the vehicle had tinted windows and was told that it had 'the darkest legal tint' ('alleged tint representation'). The representative, in his evidence, denied having been asked about this or having said what the applicant has alleged he said.

(iv) The applicant alleged that he asked the representative if the vehicle had 'been involved in any accidents' and was told that it had 'not been involved in any accidents - look at the panels' ('alleged accident representation'). The representative, in his evidence, denied having been asked about this or having said what the applicant has alleged he said.

(v) At the hearing, the applicant also alleged that he asked about a statutory warranty. This was not part of the allegations in his application, so the Tribunal refused to consider this claim.

(c) It was not contested that the applicant paid for and took possession of the vehicle on 3 October 2023.

(d) It was not contested that, on 5 October 2023, a vacuum hose on the vehicle was replaced by a third-party mechanic for $280 and that amount was later reimbursed by the respondent to applicant. This issue was not subject of a claim in the application.

(e) On 14 October 2023, 11 days after the applicant took possession of the vehicle, ownership was transferred to the applicant. While the respondent conceded there was a delay, at the hearing, it did not explain the circumstances that led to this delay.

(f) It was not contested that the applicant, in a letter and a separate email (respectively sent to the respondent on 26 November 2023 and 15 November 2023), specifically referred to the alleged representations made regarding the tint and the alleged accident representation. While the thrust of these allegations were contested at the hearing, the respondent's representative did not suggest, nor give evidence to the effect, that it had responded to the allegations set out in the letter and email.

(g) The engine light continues to be illuminated.

1. The applicant's claim related to three specific issues:

(a) The vehicle's engine light.

(b) The alleged tint representation.

(c) The alleged accident representation.

1. In this application, the applicant sought to return the vehicle and an order for reimbursement of the full purchase price of the vehicle.

1. The following facts were alleged regarding the vehicle's engine light.

(a) On 19 October 2023, the applicant noticed that the engine light on the vehicle was illuminated.

(b) On 20 October 2023, the applicant took the vehicle to a mechanic where diagnostics revealed that there was an error code 'check content level' but there was no observed issue with any content level. The vehicle's system was reset and the engine light turned off.

(c) The applicant gave evidence that the engine light illuminated again.

(d) On 28 October 2023, the applicant took the vehicle to another mechanic. The mechanic found the same error code and confirmed that there was no observed issue with any content level. The inspection cost $204.

(e) On 8 November 2023, the applicant took the vehicle to another mechanic specialising in Mercedes Benz vehicles. The mechanic found the same error code and confirmed that there was no observed issue with any content level. The mechanic recommended that the vehicle's thermostat be replaced and quoted the sum of $1,779.

(f) The applicant also adduced a quote from a different mechanic for the same work for the sum of $1,030.

(g) The applicant confirmed that the vehicle suffered no other persistent mechanical issue other than the engine light. He stated that the vehicle ran fine other than the issues identified above.

1. The respondent's position was that the vehicle has been driven for nearly two years and that the thermostat was essentially a perishable item. It disputed any breach under the ACL

1. It was agreed at the hearing that the vehicle does not have tinted windows. The applicant alleged that he relied upon the alleged representations of the representative in purchasing the vehicle.
2. The applicant alleged that the cost of a tint to the windows was $450.
3. As noted above, the respondent denied having made any representations regarding the windows being tinted. It disputed any breach under the ACL

1. The applicant did not press this aspect of the application at the hearing.

1. The applicant drove the vehicle for substantial distances before filing the claim in the Tribunal.
2. The applicant alleged that:

(a) The vehicle was not safe.

(b) The vehicle was not free from defects (and had a major defect).

1. Further, the applicant alleged that the respondent had not provided services with due care and skill and/or has refused to fix the vehicle.

1. At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal informed the parties of the evidentiary onus on the applicant to make out his claim both in respect of proving one or more breaches of the ACL and in respect of proving loss. The Tribunal informed the parties that the applicant needed to prove his case on the balance of probabilities on the basis of the filed documentary evidence and the oral evidence adduced at the hearing.
2. The Tribunal was required to make a finding in respect of credit in respect of the alleged tint representation and the circumstances surrounding it. While the alleged accident representation was not pressed, it was appropriate to make findings in relation to the alleged factual circumstances of it because these representations allegedly occurred at the same time. The Tribunal made the following findings on credit:

(a) The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant to that of the respondent's representative. The Tribunal finds that the alleged tint representation and the alleged accident representation were made.

(b) In particular, the Tribunal's view was that a person in the applicant's position was likely to have a better recall of what was asked and answered on a given occasion than a salesperson who deals with many inquiries In this case, the applicant gave evidence demonstrating that he had a clear recall of the exact words, including the words used in relation to the mechanical check representation (which was not disputed). The respondent's evidence and approach, as set out below, was less clear and precise.

(c) There was no evidence adduced that the respondent investigated, responded to, or expressly rebutted the allegations made by the applicant in the 26 November 2023 letter and 15 November 2023 email. This, alone, would not have persuaded the Tribunal. However, it was of note. It was also relevant that the letter/email set out, in a fairly contemporaneous fashion, highly specific allegations consistent with those advanced by the applicant in his oral evidence at the hearing.

(d) The Tribunal's view here was buttressed somewhat by other uncontested facts, which suggest that there was a general want of care by the respondent (or its officers) in relation to other matters such as the unexplained delay in the registration being transferred and the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase (in relation to the vacuum hose). This want of care was relevant in assessing credit of the witnesses evidence.

1. The Tribunal found the following breaches proven:

(a) The vehicle was not free from defects

(b) The vehicle was not what was promised.

(c) There was misleading and deceptive conduct by the respondent through its representative, in making the mechanical check representation and the alleged tint representation (the alleged accident representation not being pressed).

1. The Tribunal was not persuaded to order return of the vehicle and full reimbursement. Other than the issues identified above, at least one of which was not contested, the vehicle was, from the date or purchase until the date of the hearing functioning properly and has done approximately 23,000km.
2. The applicant has clearly had the benefit of an otherwise serviceable vehicle.

1. Relevantly to what was pressed at this application, the engine light has not been operating properly since shortly after the vehicle was purchased. The Tribunal finds it proven that this was as a result of a faulty thermostat.
2. The Tribunal does not find that this constitutes a major fault.
3. There were two quotes relied upon for the repair of the thermostat. The Tribunal was of the view that it was appropriate to award an amount approximately between those two quotes, being $1,500 in respect of this breach.
4. The applicant also sought to recover the $204 inspection fee. While the Tribunal will sometimes not make awards for such fees, at the hearing the respondent expressly did not object to an award being made in respect of this amount.

1. This representation has been found proven.
2. The respondent did not assert any different figure than the $450 figure asserted by the applicant being the cost of a window tint.

1. Having considered s 115B of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the Tribunal finds that the applicant should be awarded an amount equivalent to half of the filing fee, the final sum being $268.65

1. The orders set out above require the payment of the combined single sum set out below: