Another happy dealer after a court win against a consumer

legal updates

This case shows both the benefit of conducting and documenting PDIs and putting a new MOT on any vehicle sold

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.

In this matter, the consumer bought a 10 year old BMW 1 series. It had just over 70,000 miles on the clock and he paid £5.5k.

The vehicle was purchased pre October 2015 and so the relevant law was the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and not the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Shortly after the sale, the customer reported a few minor issues one of which was the bodywork. Now, the bodywork wasn’t perfect, hence the lower sale price, but the consumer was not able to win on that point as obviously he had inspected the body work when he test drove the car and again when he picked it up. So, legally speaking, the bodywork issue did not make the vehicle not of satisfactory quality as satisfactory quality does not apply where:

“ the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal”

On the mechanical issues, some simply did not exist and the others were too minor to make a vehicle of such age, mileage and price not of satisfactory quality. This was our opinion and it was shared by the court and so the claim for a refund was rejected outright.

Again, this case shows both the benefit of conducting and documenting PDIs and putting a new MOT on any vehicle sold as not only does it give the dealer a strong opportunity to prove there was no fault at the point of sale, it also demonstrates to the court that the dealer takes care over the cars he sells and is not a stereotypical Arthur Daley sort in it for a quick buck. In this case, we added a print off of the dealer’s positive social media reviews to the witness statements and this worked to enhance their perception to the court and so give them a better chance from the off.

In summing up the judge said:

The vehicle was properly checked before the sale by the Defendant and the Claimant in fact inspected it himself and did not raise any issues at that point. The car was not perfect but the Defendant had never said that it was…A 10 year old car is never going to be perfect…I am not remotely satisfied that he (the consumer) was entitled to or justified in rejecting it.

The judge also ventured to say, as we had suggested, that in his view the Claimant bought the car and then decided that he did not want it and that he exaggerated trivial issues to justify returning the vehicle and attempting to rescind the contract.

As the dealer had maintained all along, a classic case of buyer’s remorse.

Impression Communications LtdPutting the motive in automotive

Impression works with businesses across the automotive aftermarket supply chain such as parts suppliers, warehouse distributors, motor factors and independent garages. Covering all aspects of automotive aftermarket marketing, including social media, event management, customer newsletters and PR, Impression is able to quickly establish itself within a client’s business and work towards their objectives.

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.