Another court win against a consumer with unrealistic expectations of a used car

legal updates

The almost £7.5k claim was reduced by the court to just £135.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

One of our clients found themselves dealing with a rather persistent consumer whose list of alleged issues kept on growing.

Despite disputing the issues, the client took a commercial decision to offer a refund just to draw a line under the matter as it was clear this was a consumer who was not going to go away. However, the consumer did not want to return their lovely 10 year old convertible BMW, they wanted money and so many backs and forths later, they issued a claim against our client for over £7200 – £700 more than the sale price.

In response we drafted a defence and collated all the relevant information including the MOT records which showed not only a first time pass but that the consumer had driven almost 6000 miles in his first year of ownership. Hardly then indicative of a car of unsatisfactory quality.

Our final witness statement which we wrote for the client in response to the expert report ran to 5 pages, such was the level of alleged issues.

To be frank, this case was probably one of the most labour intensive small claims we have dealt with but, the effort was all worth it as the almost £7.5k claim was reduced by the court to just £135. Given that it had cost the consumer £745 to bring the claim (issue fee of £410 plus hearing fee of £335) and the court only awarded him £50 in costs (what it would have cost him to issue a claim for the £135 he ‘won’), it ended up costing the consumer dearly.

Agreeing with the points made in our defence, the judge stated that the vehicle was not of unsatisfactory quality given its age and price paid. The judge further noted that the vehicle could be driven satisfactorily and safely and was structurally sound and he found that the defects were not sufficiently serious to warrant a rejection and refund. Job done.

Brave AgencyDriving growth in the automotive industry

Brave is an award-winning digital agency offering a comprehensive range of services aimed at helping your business grow. From rebrands and web development to marketing campaigns that get you noticed, we do it all. Since 2000, we’ve helped businesses across the automotive sector reach new heights. Could yours be next?

Nona BowkisHead of Legal Services / SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Maintaining professionalism in customer disputes

Your emails may be presented to a judge for review to help decide on how you have handled the matter before the court’s involvement.

Assist your consumer… before it’s too late

If a consumer is ignored or refused assistance by you, and a repair is carried out, you will no longer be able to inspect the failed component.

What? You want me to pay after nearly 6 years?

After 5 years, 8 months, and 41,000 miles, there was a problem with the vehicle, and it ultimately required a new engine costing £4,600.

Consequential Losses

General stress and anxiety is not recoverable, otherwise everybody would claim it, similarly the time spent in dealing with a claim is generally not recoverable.

Car sold with a fault

Ensure the consumer is aware, understands, and most importantly, accepts the vehicle is subject to fault.

What you pay for is what you get

The consumer presented our member with the bill because they wrongly thought they had the right to do what they wanted.

Customer reneges on agreed not distance sale

Our member explained they do not offer a delivery service and do not engage in distance selling.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.