We recently had a win for a member where a claim was rightly dismissed on the grounds the Claimant (mutual customer by way of a motor finance provider) had no valid cause of action against our member.
The Claimant saw fit to issue proceedings against our member asserting entitlement under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. However, the claim against our member was incorrect. The Claimant had placed themselves as the legal owner of the vehicle merely as a result of the vehicle being delivered to and driven by them.
Despite being clearly stated in the documentation, it is often missed that the vehicle has been invoiced to the finance company, and not invoiced to the Claimant.
Where the invoice states invoiced to the finance company, it places the finance company as the legal owner of the vehicle. The Claimant is its registered keeper, not the legal owner.
The judge in this case found that the Claimant, quite rightly, brought the claim against the wrong party and dismissed the claim. The invoice submitted established the Claimant did not have a valid cause of action in this matter and did not have the protections under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to issue proceedings against our member.
A fantastic win and well deserved. However, it shows that details matter across all purchase documentation. A small detail such as who the purchase is invoiced to can determine the difference between a judge finding in your favour and a judgement being ordered against you.
On average 55 vulnerabilities are identified daily.
What can I do?
Review your organisations priorities and ask ‘can we afford a breach?’. What do I do during an incident? Who do I involve? When do I involve the ICO?
If you’re unable to answers these questions, you need help from the experts.
