One common occurrence in disputes with customers that escalate to court is the Claimant bringing a case against a dealership using incorrect details. Some take it a step further by attempting to deceive the court into believing they are consumers.
In one such instance, we had written to this Claimant before proceedings were issued, advising that the vehicle in question had been purchased for commercial purposes. It had been paid for through the business owner’s company, and as a matter of law, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 did not apply.
Needless to say, our warnings fell on deaf ears. The Claimant’s response, prior to court papers being received, was that he had personally paid the money and used the van occasionally for the school run—therefore, he considered himself a consumer.
The claim started in familiar fashion, where the likelihood of a successful defence often rests on how consumer-friendly or realistic the Judge is. In this case, we had a £12,000 van with around 77,000 miles on the clock. The Claimant sought rejection after just one week, citing alleged faults—the kind we deal with day in, day out. But this one also included demands for damages and other outlandish heads of claim.
A Defence was filed confirming that the parties were not in a contractual relationship. The vehicle had been purchased on finance and leased to the Claimant’s company. Furthermore, even if there had been a contract, there was no breach under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, and there was no justification for the vehicle being unceremoniously dumped outside the dealership’s premises.
As the hearing progressed, it became increasingly clear that the Claimant was ill-prepared for his day in court. His narrative began to unravel. He had promised the Court an expert report, but never disclosed one. He failed to provide a witness statement, and the one submitted by another party was ruled inadmissible.
Under cross-examination, he admitted he had purchased the van for business use, used it primarily for work, and that the vehicle was leased under a finance agreement with a separate company not party to the proceedings—an agreement he had personally signed. He ultimately conceded there could be no contract between him and our member.
While the District Judge expressed some sympathy for his position, the claim failed. The Judge concluded that if someone chooses to bring a cause of action, they must ensure the legal foundation is sound. Since the agreement was legally separate from the Claimant personally, he had no cause of action. Furthermore, cases are proven by evidence—and the lack of it here was striking.
Despite his insistence that he brought the claim “as a matter of principle,” this two-year saga was anything but a model claim. As such, the applicable costs for successfully defending the dismissed claim were awarded to our member.
What most people don’t know is that talent development doesn’t have to be complicated, high risk or expensive. Once they integrate key development stages, the results can be remarkable. Empower your team. Lead your industry. We’re your strategic learning partner, driving performance by moving skills forward.
