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.

WeRecruit Auto LtdPermanent Automotive Recruitment from an experienced and trustworthy recruitment partner.

We cover roles within all departments and sectors of the Automotive industry, and are here to listen to your specific needs and find the most suitable candidates to fit your business.

Nona BowkisHead of Legal Services / SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Legal Disputes: Why traders should avoid direct contact

The urge to sort the matter out, or attempt to, can put a strain on the process and you may find yourself in a difficult position.

The etiquette of handling consumer complaints

It is always best practice to get involved while you have the chance and follow the correct process at the very beginning.

A settlement agreement may not protect you

An agreement does not need to be in writing to be binding, but it is much easier to prove the terms of an agreement if there is a documented paper trail.

The customer isn’t always right…

As it was a defect he knew about, he cannot now claim it renders the vehicle not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.

Implications, assumptions, and confusion – why being clear on your actions could be key to winning

The diagnosis showed the third-party garage had failed to repair the vehicle to a satisfactory standard and this was relayed to the consumer.

Burden of proof? Get your evidence while you can!

The burden of proof reverses for issues raised between 30 days and six months of ownership.

On your Marks… Get Set… Doh!

The TSO told our member that the consumer ought not to have experienced a failure given the age and mileage of the car.

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.