Can You Claim What You Haven’t Lost? The ‘No Loss’ Principle Meets s19 CRA 2015

legal updates

A live claim against a member raises a sharp question: if no money has changed hands and only deductions are in dispute, has the claimant suffered a recoverable loss?

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.

A recent case which is currently being argued, surrounds the “no loss” principle. This principle is often used in construction and commercial cases, but its significance in consumer law is also relevant despite the statutory framework at s19 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. We are all familiar with s19(3) of the Act and the short-term right of rejection, the right to repair or replacement, and the final right of rejection or price reduction that flows from that.

However, a claim was recently issued against one of our members where whilst a refund had been agreed, there were contractual sticking points, which allowed for specific deductions to be made. Unfortunately, an agreement could not be reached and the matter remains in litigation.

What was striking about the claim was that it pleaded only the deductions the parties could not agree upon, as set out in the contract. No claim was made for the value of the vehicle itself. At the time of the claim, no money had changed hands.

This led me to consider, based on that claim, whether a ‘no loss’ defence could be raised. The basis would be that, at the time of the claim, the claimant had not yet incurred the losses claimed, for example where losses are future or prospective. The court is required to consider whether the losses are probable, reasonable and fair to claim, even if they have not yet been incurred. Where a rejected vehicle is concerned, as in this case, if the claimant has accepted rejection and is not specifically claiming the value of the vehicle, the ‘no loss’ defence can, in theory, be argued on the basis that the claimed losses have not yet been incurred.

The proposed deductions are specified in the contract, and reliance would also be placed on the general principle that the courts in England and Wales uphold freedom of contract, meaning that parties are bound by the terms they have agreed to. However, there are limitations to this principle, as seen under s31 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Nevertheless, where losses have not been incurred at the time of the claim, the ‘no loss’ principle may arise.

If you are facing similar refund or deduction disputes, our Lawgistics legal team can help through our telephone helpline or casework service.

Profit BoxDevelop your people like your business depends on it

What most people don’t know is that talent development doesn’t have to be complicated, high risk or expensive. Once they integrate key development stages, the results can be remarkable. Empower your team. Lead your industry. We’re your strategic learning partner, driving performance by moving skills forward.

Adrian BrazierLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Don’t Get Soaked: The Habitation Checks That Stop Motorhome Rejections

Buyers are rejecting motorhomes for damp, leaks and unsafe cabins. Here’s what to inspect in the habitation area and why a simple pre-sale check can save you a costly Consumer Rights Act dispute.

To Repair or Not to Repair: that is the question

A customer drops off a car three months after purchase and asks for a refund. You might have a right to repair, but touch a spanner without clear permission and you could turn a winnable case into an unwanted rejection.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015: Bête noire or useful tool?

Section 19(14) isn’t a magic wand for consumers, and Sections 23 and 24 give traders real leverage. Here’s how to use repairs, disproportionality and usage deductions to keep disputes under control.

Sale or Return: Why “Private Sale” won’t save you from Consumer Rights Act responsibilities

Dealers using Sale or Return cannot hide behind “private sale” labels unless the agency position is made crystal clear from the advert onward. Miss that step and you risk CRA 2015 claims and a DMCCA 2024 breach.

30 Days to Hand the Keys Back: How the Short-Term Right to Reject Really Works

Think a new fault lets buyers walk away, no questions asked? Not quite. Discover why the burden of proof is on the consumer, and how dealers can stay one step ahead.

Don’t Get Caught Out: Why Your Car Warranty Won’t Shield You from the Consumer Rights Act

Think a watertight warranty protects you from refund demands? Think again. We explain how the Consumer Rights Act trumps any small print and what dealers must do to stay safe, or risk costly claims.

When no title means no sale

Four years after selling a Range Rover, a trader was hit with a demand for a full refund when the vehicle was seized in Spain.

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.