The customer isn’t always right…

legal updates

As it was a defect he knew about, he cannot now claim it renders the vehicle not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.

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.

There was a favourable outcome for our member in a recent case where the Claimant was awarded only £100.00 of his £2500 claim.

At the point of purchase, the Claimant was aware of a chip in the windscreen, which was an advisory on the MOT. After purchase, the Claimant was advised of an oil leak via third- party diagnosis and eventually issued proceedings against our client for £2500 of repair costs. 

In cross-examination, the Claimant conceded he knew about the chip in the windscreen prior to entering the contract, as the Defendant, our member, had made him aware of it. He also conceded that he refused to let the Defendant inspect and repair the oil leak, reasoning that the trip was too far and that the Defendant had refused to replace the windscreen at the same time.

The judge determined that under s14 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Claimant cannot claim subsequently for a defect that was drawn to his attention or that he knew about, or was reasonably or obviously observable. As it was a defect he knew about, he cannot now claim it renders the vehicle not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.

In respect of the oil leak, the judge considered the burden of proof to be upon the Defendant, however, the Claimant confirmed he had turned down an offer by the Defendant to repair the oil leak. The judge determined that as he refused to take it back for repair, the Claimant had removed his remedy under the Consumer Rights Act.  The Claimant was awarded the cost of an inspection

Cable For My CarWe offer free next day delivery* on all EV charging cables when shipped within mainland UK

Stocking only premium EV charging cables, we ensure you experience a stress-free EV charge, over and over, confidently backed by our 2 year warranty. Our premium & reliable charging cables are compliant with EU & UK safety standards. We offer free next day delivery* on all EV charging cables when shipped within mainland UK.

Polly DaviesLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Don’t Get Soaked: The Habitation Checks That Stop Motorhome Rejections

Buyers are rejecting motorhomes for damp, leaks and unsafe cabins. Here’s what to inspect in the habitation area and why a simple pre-sale check can save you a costly Consumer Rights Act dispute.

Can You Claim What You Haven’t Lost? The ‘No Loss’ Principle Meets s19 CRA 2015

A live claim against a member raises a sharp question: if no money has changed hands and only deductions are in dispute, has the claimant suffered a recoverable loss?

To Repair or Not to Repair: that is the question

A customer drops off a car three months after purchase and asks for a refund. You might have a right to repair, but touch a spanner without clear permission and you could turn a winnable case into an unwanted rejection.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015: Bête noire or useful tool?

Section 19(14) isn’t a magic wand for consumers, and Sections 23 and 24 give traders real leverage. Here’s how to use repairs, disproportionality and usage deductions to keep disputes under control.

Sale or Return: Why “Private Sale” won’t save you from Consumer Rights Act responsibilities

Dealers using Sale or Return cannot hide behind “private sale” labels unless the agency position is made crystal clear from the advert onward. Miss that step and you risk CRA 2015 claims and a DMCCA 2024 breach.

30 Days to Hand the Keys Back: How the Short-Term Right to Reject Really Works

Think a new fault lets buyers walk away, no questions asked? Not quite. Discover why the burden of proof is on the consumer, and how dealers can stay one step ahead.

Don’t Get Caught Out: Why Your Car Warranty Won’t Shield You from the Consumer Rights Act

Think a watertight warranty protects you from refund demands? Think again. We explain how the Consumer Rights Act trumps any small print and what dealers must do to stay safe, or risk costly claims.

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.