Technique Auto Sales Corporation - Decision of the Registrar of Motor Dealers - January 26, 2011

Sep 17, 2026

Uploaded by Fans

Formal regulatory decision outlining a hearing under the Motor Dealer Act (R.S.B.C. 1996 c.316) and the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (S.B.C. 2004 c.2). The complainants allege Technique Auto Sales Corporation sold a 1999 Jeep Cherokee using a fake dash VIN, misrepresenting clear title, while the vehicle had been reported stolen and later seized. Evidence describes ICBC’s investigation, including VIN cloning from another vehicle, dispute over replacement options, and competing valuations.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages20

Reading Time50 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Basic Facts

Position of the Parties

(a) Complainants

(b) Technique

RE: AND: Date and Place of Hearing: Appearances for: The Motor Vehicle Sales Authority Complainants Technique Auto Sales Corporation INTRODUCTION Hearing File No.10-U039 Investigation File No.10-70482 MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AUTHORITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA(Previously known as the Motor Dealer Council of B.C.) IN THE MATTER OF THE MOTOR DEALER ACT R.S.B.C.1996 c.316 AND THEBUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT S.B.C.2004 c.2 BILL CHYPLYK AND CHERYL ANNE TREWHITT COMPLAINANTS # TECHNIQUE AUTO SALES CORPORATION(Dealer\#11035) MOTOR DEALER # DECISION OF THE REGISTRAR OF MOTOR DEALERS January 26,2011,at Surrey,British Columbia Denis Savidan,Manager of Compliance andInvestigationsRoss Coté,Compliance Officer Bill Chyplyck in person Mohsen Elahi Khansari -Owner 1. This hearing was called pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the Motor Dealer ActR.S.B.C.1996 c.316("MDA")and section 5(1)of the Business Practices andConsumer Protection Act S.B.C.2004 c.2(BPCPA).The Complainants,Bill Chyplykand Cheryl Trewhitt,state that Technique Auto Sales Corporation("Technique")soldthem a 1999 Jeep Cherokee representing by words or by conduct that they wereobtaining the Jeep with good and clear title,when the Jeep was in fact a stolen vehicle subsequently seized from the Complainants by the Royal Canadian MountedPolice. ## BASIC FACTS 2. The major facts are not in dispute. 3. The Complainants purchased the Jeep from Technique on or about August 25,2003.They dealt with a salesperson at Technique but they no longer rememberhis name.Mr.Chyplyk did say it was not Mr.Mohsen Elahi Khansari. 4. Over the past several years the Jeep went through AirCare inspectionswithout a problem.There was no indication that the Jeep was not as described. 5. In early 2010,the Jeep was taken into AirCare for its emission testing.Theattendant noted there was something wrong with the vehicle identification number(VIN)on the Jeep's dash.This issue made its way to ICBC's special investigationsunit who investigated further.Using other VIN's that are hidden on the Jeep,EdLuft,investigator with ICBC,determined that the Jeep was actually reported stolenon June 4,2001.ICBC had paid out on the theft claim and thereafter tookownership of the Jeep. 6. The dash VIN on the Jeep in question was incorrect and was a fake VINusing an actual VIN from another Jeep.The Jeep in question here was what isknown in the industry as a cloned vehicle -pretending to be another vehicle byusing the fake VIN. 7. Ross Coté,Compliance Officer with the Motor Vehicle Sales Authority(the"Authority"),determined that the VIN that was used on the dash of the Jeepbelonged to another Jeep that was and is registered in the State of Washington.Heused the CarProof vehicle history reporting service to make that determination. 8.The Complainants and Technique entered into discussions to resolve thismatter.The Complainants initially stated they wanted(1)"the vehicle returned withlegal VIN number;(2)replaced with a vehicle of equal or better quality;or(3)reimburse them in cash based on ICBC's appraisal of the Jeep($9,500 +12%taxes):"Complaint Form which is Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Ross Coté. 9. Technique offered various vehicles to the Complainants.According to Mr.Khansari's oral testimony,if the vehicle was a better quality vehicle,it would beoffered with a request to pay more for the "upgrade."In each case theComplainants refused and an impasse arose leading to this hearing. ## POSITION OF THE PARTIES ### (a)Complainants 10. At the time they filed their complaint with the Authority,the Complainantsadvanced three proposals to resolve the issues: (i) return of the Jeep with its proper vehicle identification number; (ii)the dealer to provide another vehicle of equal or better quality;or iii)reimburse the Complainants for the vehicle as estimated by ICBC of $9,500+12%taxes. 11. Compliance Office,Ross Coté,spoke with ICBC abou

FAQs

What laws govern this hearing?

The hearing is called pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the Motor Dealer Act (R.S.B.C. 1996 c.316) and section 5(1) of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (S.B.C. 2004 c.2).

What was the complainants’ core allegation against Technique?

The complainants state Technique sold the Jeep representing that they were obtaining it with good and clear title, while the vehicle was in fact stolen and later seized from them by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

How did ICBC determine the Jeep had a fake or cloned VIN?

ICBC investigated the dash VIN issue noted during emission testing, used other hidden VINs on the vehicle, and determined the Jeep was reported stolen on June 4, 2001; it also concluded the dash VIN was incorrect and used a fake VIN from another Jeep.

Sep 17, 2026

Uploaded by Fans

Technique Auto Sales Corporation - Decision of the Registrar of Motor Dealers - January 26, 2011_Page 1

Open in WPS to view all 20 pages