Another court win against a consumer with unrealistic expectations of a used car

legal updates

The almost £7.5k claim was reduced by the court to just £135.

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.

One of our clients found themselves dealing with a rather persistent consumer whose list of alleged issues kept on growing.

Despite disputing the issues, the client took a commercial decision to offer a refund just to draw a line under the matter as it was clear this was a consumer who was not going to go away. However, the consumer did not want to return their lovely 10 year old convertible BMW, they wanted money and so many backs and forths later, they issued a claim against our client for over £7200 – £700 more than the sale price.

In response we drafted a defence and collated all the relevant information including the MOT records which showed not only a first time pass but that the consumer had driven almost 6000 miles in his first year of ownership. Hardly then indicative of a car of unsatisfactory quality.

Our final witness statement which we wrote for the client in response to the expert report ran to 5 pages, such was the level of alleged issues.

To be frank, this case was probably one of the most labour intensive small claims we have dealt with but, the effort was all worth it as the almost £7.5k claim was reduced by the court to just £135. Given that it had cost the consumer £745 to bring the claim (issue fee of £410 plus hearing fee of £335) and the court only awarded him £50 in costs (what it would have cost him to issue a claim for the £135 he ‘won’), it ended up costing the consumer dearly.

Agreeing with the points made in our defence, the judge stated that the vehicle was not of unsatisfactory quality given its age and price paid. The judge further noted that the vehicle could be driven satisfactorily and safely and was structurally sound and he found that the defects were not sufficiently serious to warrant a rejection and refund. Job done.

Impression Communications LtdPutting the motive in automotive

Impression works with businesses across the automotive aftermarket supply chain such as parts suppliers, warehouse distributors, motor factors and independent garages. Covering all aspects of automotive aftermarket marketing, including social media, event management, customer newsletters and PR, Impression is able to quickly establish itself within a client’s business and work towards their objectives.

Nona BowkisHead of Legal Services / SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Refund and Repairs? The Hidden Trap in Overreaching Civil Claims

Customers often try to claim a refund, repairs, and compensation for inconvenience all at once, but the courts rarely indulge “Earth, Moon and stars” claims.

Navigating the Return of Part-Exchange Vehicles

When a financed car sale is rejected, what happens to the part-exchange (and its cleared finance) is rarely straightforward.

Car Trouble Years Later: Who’s to Blame, the Customer or the Trader?

When a fault surfaces years after a sale, who carries the burden under the Consumer Rights Act 2015? Here’s the quick guide traders need to protect their position and respond confidently.

Rejection Rights Aren’t ‘Refund on Demand’: What the CRA 2015 Really Expects

A vociferous rejection doesn’t trump the trader’s right to inspect or make a fair deduction for use. We unpack what “agreement” really means under the CRA 2015.

Experts vs. “Garage Reports”: The evidence edge that could win your case

Garage reports can help, but only CPR Part 35 expert evidence tends to swing a dispute. Before costs spiral, here’s how and when to use experts to protect your position with consumers, businesses, and finance companies.

“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.

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.