Finance company ordered to pay client’s costs

legal updates

It is now becoming more frequent that a finance company is quick to allow the consumer to reject the vehicle after months of driving a vehicle.

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.

Another client recently won a case brought against them by a finance company.

It is now becoming more frequent that a finance company is quick to allow the consumer to reject the vehicle after months of driving a vehicle. This particular case, it’s fair to say the vehicle had definitely been around the block, the vehicle in question had covered over 100,000 miles and was over 9 years at the point of sale.

The consumer complained of a CD player not working, whilst a replacement component was offered, compensation or exchange of a different vehicle was all offered (being the proportionate remedy) these were refused. Whilst we argued the CD player did not render the vehicle not of satisfactory quality nor not fit for purpose, the finance company allowed the consumer to reject the vehicle after covering 7,000 miles and providing a full refund!

Not only did the finance company allow the rejection but they also refused the offer of our client to buy the vehicle back at a very fair price or re-sell the vehicle. The finance company sold the vehicle at auction achieving a substantial loss which they attempted to sue our client for!

The Judge not only chucked the case out but also ordered the finance company to pay our clients cost’s. A great and deserving outcome for our client.

Connected Car FinanceReady to take the connected approach?

We’re here to ensure all used car dealerships deliver a better car finance experience for their customers. With over 4,000 approved dealer partners we ensure you are properly supported and connected with a range of flexible finance options, allowing you to lend and your customers to buy in complete confidence.

Roxanne BradleyLitigation ExecutiveRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

“Running Well”: Two words that cost a consumer £3,300

The judge found our member’s repairs were sound and ruled the email undercut the later allegations, dismissing the claim and awarding expenses.

The photo you didn’t take could cost you thousands

Proving a vehicle’s condition at handover is the difference between recovering costs and footing the bill.

They Broke It, You Don’t Pay: Intervening Acts that defend dealer claims

When damage stems from what a customer did after purchase, you may not be on the hook.

Tripartite Finance Agreements: Why dealers don’t have to accept a Hobson’s Choice

Finance houses are pushing ‘tripartite’ agreements that look like a Hobson’s choice for dealers.

To strike or not to strike

Courts are reluctant to strike out a claim or defence, even where there are procedural breaches. Here’s when CPR 3.4(2) genuinely applies, why summary judgment under Part 24 may be a better route, and what judges look for before taking the drastic step.

Is the legislative framework outdated or misunderstood?

A claimant mixed pre-2015 laws with a post-2015 car purchase and the result was, frankly, embarrassing.

Come On, Baby, Light My Fire

If a car goes up in smoke, does the buyer’s insurance mean the trader escapes liability? Here’s how insurer involvement really works…

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.