Author: Nona Bowkis
Published: February 20, 2019
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 3 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.
In a recent decision which found its way to the Daily Mail, the Motor Ombudsman awarded a consumer £850 because his ‘black leather’ seats were not 100% leather.
The consumer purchased a used Mercedes E Class, presumably after looking around and test driving the vehicle, but later made a complaint after reading about another consumer who had his seat leather tested to reveal that it contained polyurethane.
Apparently, Mercedes advised the Motor Ombudsman that the seat was leather ‘but uses other materials to give it rigidity and structure’.
As this was a used car, we can presume that the consumer did not pay any extra for leather seats and he was happy with them until he read the other article. As such, there appears to be no loss whatsoever. However, despite this, the Motor Ombudsman decided that the dealer should have to pay the consumer £850 compensation. Not content with his own windfall, the consumer is quoted as saying “if other drivers follow the same path as me I expect they will get the same result”.
So, despite the Motor Ombudsman’s claim that “we are not here to punish companies but aim to put you in the position you would have been in had the problem not occurred” – this is clearly not the case as the dealer is £850 down and the consumer a straight £850 up as his car was worth no less regardless of the make up of the ‘leather seats’.