Another court win against a consumer with unrealistic expectations of a used car

legal updates

The almost £7.5k claim was reduced by the court to just £135.

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.

One of our clients found themselves dealing with a rather persistent consumer whose list of alleged issues kept on growing.

Despite disputing the issues, the client took a commercial decision to offer a refund just to draw a line under the matter as it was clear this was a consumer who was not going to go away. However, the consumer did not want to return their lovely 10 year old convertible BMW, they wanted money and so many backs and forths later, they issued a claim against our client for over £7200 – £700 more than the sale price.

In response we drafted a defence and collated all the relevant information including the MOT records which showed not only a first time pass but that the consumer had driven almost 6000 miles in his first year of ownership. Hardly then indicative of a car of unsatisfactory quality.

Our final witness statement which we wrote for the client in response to the expert report ran to 5 pages, such was the level of alleged issues.

To be frank, this case was probably one of the most labour intensive small claims we have dealt with but, the effort was all worth it as the almost £7.5k claim was reduced by the court to just £135. Given that it had cost the consumer £745 to bring the claim (issue fee of £410 plus hearing fee of £335) and the court only awarded him £50 in costs (what it would have cost him to issue a claim for the £135 he ‘won’), it ended up costing the consumer dearly.

Agreeing with the points made in our defence, the judge stated that the vehicle was not of unsatisfactory quality given its age and price paid. The judge further noted that the vehicle could be driven satisfactorily and safely and was structurally sound and he found that the defects were not sufficiently serious to warrant a rejection and refund. Job done.

Octane FinanceFuel Your Finance

Octane Finance is the broker of choice for new and used car dealers nationwide. With our uncompromising service levels and our genuine and professional approach, you and your customers can trust us to deliver.

Nona BowkisHead of Legal Services / SolicitorRead 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.

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

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?

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.

Winter Is Coming: Stop Seasonal Complaints Before They Start

Winter faults spark a spike in consumer complaints. A few extra pre-sale checks now can save you a world of hassle when the temperature drops.

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.

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.