For all that it sounds like a cross between the works of Charles Dickens and John Steinbeck, the reality isn’t quite so enticing.
Whether in Letters Before Action or Claims themselves, Claimants, be they litigants in person or those with legal representation, often resort to a degree of pedantry when detailing the damages they allege to have suffered. It’s the sort of nit-picking Dickens would have recognised from his days as a clerk at one of the Inns of Court.
Typically, this involves claiming for parts of cars that are relatively new. Satellite navigation, for example. One recent letter of claim suggested that being unable to use the onboard sat nav prevented the claimant from determining speed limits on the roads he was using. Much as you want to roll your eyes at such claims, they’re becoming embedded in the sediment of contemporary legal proceedings.
This raises the question: can a Claimant arguing that they can’t use their vehicle without satellite navigation be considered as failing to mitigate their loss? After all, if you’re my age or older, you’ll likely recall your parents, or your partner, angrily flicking through the A-Z, trying to remember whether it was the third or fourth left they were supposed to take after coming off the A666. Or, if you’re like me, you just drive around until you see a road sign for somewhere familiar and figure it out from there.
But in the eyes of the Court, your level of driving experience makes no difference. Even a learner driver, like Ms Weston back in 1965 (see Nettleship v Weston), is expected to show the same standard of care and skill as someone who’s been driving for 10 or 20 years. That could mean the Court views reliance on sat navs as a sign of failing to meet that standard. Or, just as likely, it might see sat navs as being as integral to a functioning car as the engine, clutch, or brakes.
Further, Claimants increasingly plead ignorance when it comes to vehicle maintenance. Some argue that a dealer or garage failing to mention even minor issues constitutes misrepresentation. Others assume the moral high ground and rely on the Consumer Rights Act, claiming that a fault must have been present at the time of sale, even if it arose more than a year later. (The CRA generally talks about a six-month presumption, though it allows for counter-arguments that the goods conformed to the contract at the time of sale.)
All of which suggests a legal environment that’s becoming more fraught for anyone in business. Thankfully, Lawgistics is here to help, and we’ll be sure to approach such claims with a healthy dose of scepticism, and perhaps a little pedantry of our own, when coming to your aid.
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.
