Regular readers of our updates will be aware of two cases involving two different dealers from whom a customer purchased high value vehicles, only to try and return them for a full refund many months after the sale.
In the first case, two Teslas were purchased during COVID, a time when dealers could not legitimately operate from their showrooms but could sell vehicles under the Distance Selling Rules which are laid out in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. In the second, the same purchaser seemingly used the first Tesla refund to buy another vehicle from a different dealer.
Unfortunately, there was nothing we could do to help the first dealer, as the sale met all parts of the legal definition of a distance sale. However, when the same customer tried to obtain a full refund for the new Tesla, we were able to assist. Although the facts looked similar, even to the point it was the same customer purchasing the vehicle, there was a subtle difference, namely that the second dealer did not operate an organised distance sales scheme. The full definition of a distance sale in the Regulations is:
“distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded
For the Distance Selling rules to bite, all parts of the definition must be met. In the second sale, there was no “organised distance sales scheme” operated by that dealer, so the customer could not persuade the court to order a refund.
During the second case, it became apparent that these Tesla refund scenarios were not the customer’s first rodeo, and he had previously taken advantage of dealers not being fully aware of the Distance Selling rules. Not to be deterred, the customer sought permission to appeal the judgment, which had been delivered in writing over 18 detailed pages. The trial judge refused permission, so a written application was made. The court refused that application. The customer then followed up with an oral application, and we were advised this week that permission was refused again. This customer has reached the end of the road, and our dealer can now relax.
Given the second Tesla sale was in September 2022, the initial court judgment in August 2024, and the final refusal of permission to appeal in January 2026, this case demonstrates how long it can take for legal cases to reach a final conclusion. It also demonstrates that every case turns on its own facts. Winning or losing a similar case does not guarantee the same outcome, as a nuance or subtle difference can switch the result in one party’s favour. This is why we work hard to keep our members out of court, as proceedings can be lengthy and, in all honesty, a bit of a lottery. However, for those who do find themselves in court, we operate a dedicated litigation service exclusively for the motor trade. It is provided at highly subsidised rates compared with high street firms and delivered by skilled solicitors and practitioners drawing on over 25 years of Lawgistics know-how and motor trade experience.
If you have faced a similar refund demand or distance selling dispute, why not call our legal team at Lawgistics via our telephone helpline or casework service for guidance.
More details on our litigation service can be found here – Lawgistics Litigation for the Motor Trade
A copy of our Distance Selling template can be found below…
And Details of our next 60-minute masterclass on Distance Selling can be found here – Distance Sales: The Rules, The Risks, The Realities
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.
