Author: Polly Davies
Published: October 4, 2017
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 8 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.
Despite congratulating a Claimant on their preparation a district judge has found in favour of a Lawgistics client and dismissed a claim against them.
Our client, a small, family owned business was taken to court by the customer who purchased a ten year old vehicle with almost 120,000 on the clock for £1700. The judge took into account the age, the mileage and the price paid. He said unfortunately when one buys a vehicle of that age and mileage it is a fact that problems may be encountered and this is reflected in the price. There were problems and the judge was satisfied our client rectified them satisfactorily at no expense to the Claimant.
However, the Claimant subsequently ‘lost confidence’ in the car when an engine management light illuminated, but did not investigate this and refused to allow our client to do so believing he could reject the car immediately. Lawgistics submitted a robust defence to the claim and despite the Claimants detailed submissions, the judge dismissed the claim as the Claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof of any fault which would make our client liable in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
