Author: Roxanne Bradley
Published: January 5, 2016
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 9 years old.
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.
We have recently dealt with a case where a client has failed to undertake full and thorough (PDI’s) pre-delivery inspection checks to a vehicle prior to sale.
This was to the extent that basic checks such as tyre and fluid levels were not undertaken. The vehicle was subsequently sold and later rejected within the first 30 days, under the new Consumer Rights Act 2015 ‘short term right to reject’ rules. Whilst things such as tyre and fluid levels may ordinarily be considered wear and tear, the fact that the dealer failed to even check these prior to sale, it was difficult to argue that the dealer had been diligent and thus the vehicle could not be proven to have satisfactory at the point of sale. The vehicle in question did experience other issues as well, but the fact that such basis checks were not undertaken highlighted the clear lack of diligence the dealer took when preparing the vehicle.
Had a PDI check been done, in line with our PDI pads, then we would have been in a much stronger position to argue wear and tear. However this was not the case and has left the dealer in a sticky situation. It is therefore of vital importance to ensure these checks are done, AND they are evidenced by way of a PDI check.
