On Road Costs extra. . . . .

29wayne, Jul 14, 4:00am
In a pig's eye.

If I buy anything, I have a reasonable expectation that the commodity I am buying is "Fit For Purpose."

If a car is not warranted and registered, it is not legally allowed on the road, ergo, is NOT fit for purpose.

Consequently, any advertisement that stipulates "On Road Costs extra" is immediately EXCLUDED from my list of potential investments.

I realise that after I buy and pay the extra, it will be fit for purpose. Not going to happen! The price I want to see . . . is the price - "Ready to Drive away."

That's what I'll pay for . . . . That's what I expect.
pico42, Jul 14, 4:16am
Some buyers (eg fleet buyers) would prefer to take care of the on-road costs themselves. So these costs are generally shown separately.
A bit like most computers being advertised exclusive of GST.

The dealt will put it on the road for you, you just need to allow for that in your pricing. It is not especially onerous and seems to be a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face.
suicidemonkey, Jul 14, 4:20am
On road costs are typically optional. It's like buying a computer. They don't come with Microsoft Office but you can buy it separately. But not everyone needs to.
skin1235, Jul 14, 4:21am
the dealer knows I am not buying for business or fleet reasons, the 'onroad costs extra' is just his avoidance to pay the cost of reg and license
fine
I'll go elsewhere, his loss
skin1235, Jul 14, 4:22am
everyone needs the reg and license and the WoF, its just a cheap ploy to save him cash and cost you more
29wayne, Jul 14, 4:27am
I see it as a simple salemoron's way of advertising something at less than it's actually going to cost, to trap a less than wary buyer. Cheap tactics.
owen106, Jul 14, 4:28am
Same rubbish as advertising "+ GST". Just tell me the price. Cunning trick to make their prices seem lower.
suicidemonkey, Jul 14, 4:53am
Also a good way for businesses who claim GST back to see the actual price they'll be paying
stevo2, Jul 14, 12:51pm
I agree that ORC should be included in ALL purchases, but if you are happy to pay "The Price You See" on the window, most dealers would be happy to include orc's for a no haggle sale.
tamarillo, Jul 14, 3:17pm
Op. I agree with you. Can't advertise appliance with out gst. All I read here are bullshit excuses, fact is it makes asking price look smaller. Dealer imports it not buyer. It is there cost to get it comparable with a car already on the road.
If I arrange a direct import fair enough but not when cars are on open market.
Next question is why do so few have Japanese service records? If there's nothing to hide?
alfa13, Jul 14, 3:24pm
Buy a demo model then - all included
kazbanz, Jul 14, 4:19pm
I find it hard to believe that the Con Com allows this rubbish to continue.
The same BS excuses get dragged out whenever this subject comes up.
Reality is that fleet buyers are professionnals so they KNOW the story and ask to be invoiced orc separately.
Re service records.-There is a simple reason for this and its NOTHING to do with lack of servicing.
At the jap Auctions the service records show the dealership selling the car -ie service normally means sale. The sneaky jap buyers try to get around the auctions (and the auction fees) to buy direct from the owner.
The auctions take the records out to prevent this.
mrfxit, Jul 14, 4:58pm
Yea hate this bollocks ex GST/ ORC rubbish.
IF your business is openly selling to the public AND generally s/h gear, then the vast majority of your customers will be "Jo public" who don't want or need the hassle or know how to work out the extra costings.

I have had it several times where a business has sold me gear & then invoiced me on a cash sale for the extra fee's but because they didn't specificity advise me of the extra fee's, they have either had to back down & sell at the advised price ex fee's or cancel the whole transaction.

I can't see any real reason for not including the extra fee's + the total apart from extra admin time.

As Kaz said, business's buying ex gst, do this all the time & already know instantly & naturally (as a matter of course) about those extra's & of course claiming it back later on their tax's.

Jo Public . . . yea NAH
tony9, Jul 14, 5:48pm
Yep, called Bait advertising and this what the Fair Trading Act says about it " 19 Bait advertising

(1) No person shall, in trade, advertise for supply at a specified price goods or services which that person-
(a) does not intend to offer for supply; or
(b) does not have reasonable grounds for believing can be supplied by that person??
westwyn, Jul 14, 6:04pm
I'm not going to wade into the whole good/bad issue of On Road Costs- there are valid arguments on BOTH sides around their validity, each as passionate as the other- but not necessarily any more "correct" than the other.

What I DO know, is their "legality" for want of a better phrase, has been reviewed by the Commerce Commission (amongst others) and found to be a legal and lawful cost of sale, AS LONG AS the costs are disclosed on the CIN (Consumer Information Notice) shown for display on the vehicle, and their status also disclosed in any marketing- ie here on TradeMe, a vendor must state if the vehicle sale price is inclusive, or exclusive, of on-road costs.

This is not a statement around whether you think they should be included or excluded- that's up to the individual to decide- but from a legal standpoint, there is nothing misleading about it.
darryl, Jul 14, 6:17pm
First world problems eh

LoL
kazbanz, Jul 14, 8:26pm
Wastwyn THAT ^^^^^^ is politicking at its very worst.~!
There is absolutely NO way on this little green rock that the "plus" on road costs in small letters buried in the middle of an advertisement compares to the big bold price tag that is the first thing a potential buyer sees on any advert.
dinx, Jul 14, 8:35pm
I did say to one place I will do the orc myself, they were inflating them for the added "convenience" of attaching the plates for me the said. They said they would not sell without it, but it was turners and they do consider themselves above the law lol.
westwyn, Jul 14, 9:04pm
No Kaz, it's nothing to do with that- read my post again- in response to the discussion about the LEGALITY of on-road costs being listed as an "extra", I've stated that the Commerce Commission (amongst other related Government bodies) have reviewed the issue and determined the practice is not illegal. It is not viewed as misleading, or bait advertising, or deception under the Fair Trading Act- as long as the consumer is made aware of the additional cost BEFORE they sign the bottom line. Hence the reason TradeMe modified the loading platform to require you to tick "yes" or "no" to on-road costs being additional when you create a listing, and a legal definition in place around the CIN card and the requirement to show the TOTAL price (and yes, it's acceptable, apparantly, to state for example "$7995 plus ORC $300 = $8295" on that card).

I didn't say whether or not I agreed with it, and I'm not putting up an argument for, or against, the merits- interestingly the trade is roughly 50/50 on it- but LEGALLY there is no argument against it.

If a dealership doesn't display the On-Road Costs on their CIN cards, they are in breach of the Act. Plain and simple.
westwyn, Feb 6, 10:01am
There's a different arguement, Dinx, you're correct, Turners charge not only the true MR2A cost but ALSO a 'convenience fee" for the service. Personally I DO have an issue with this, paying an extra $100 or $150 to have a muppet screw your plates on (there's a little more to it than that, granted, but not much!) is a shady call. But then, Turners would argue, you're free to NOT buy the car from them, if you don't like it.