Another Lawgistics client has a County Court claim against them dismissed!


The Judge questioned the motive for rejecting the offer put forward by the seller.

Author: Roxanne Bradley
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 6 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.

A consumer issued proceedings against one of our clients. The Claim was in reference to paintwork on the vehicle.

Brief description of the case. The vehicle was over 4 years old with the price tag of £16,289.00 at the time of sale it was agreed the seller would incur the cost of a smart repair to be carried out on a bumper. The consumer didn’t arrange for this repair to be carried out until some two months after taking possession of the vehicle. However a further five months later (7 months the vehicle being in the consumers care) the consumer contacted the seller to report the paintwork lifting. The consumer provided their own report which suggested the fault was a common occurrence from stone chips.

Whilst there is no evidence to suggest the paintwork was defective or fault at the time of purchase or had been caused from the previous smart repair the seller offered to incur the cost for the repair to be carried out by a company in the interest of maintaining good relations as a gesture of goodwill.  

This was flatly refused by the consumer due to this being a “inconvenience” and requested other costs to be paid such as loss of earnings and transport costs. The consumer issued proceedings.

Firstly it was brought to the Judge’s attention the failure of the consumer to submit a witness statement in accordance to the previous court order. The Judge then questioned on what legal grounds was the consumer bringing the claim under and the need for the Claimant to prove such claim.  Further the Judge questioned the motive for rejecting the offer put forward by the seller and rejected the response of it being inconvenient.

The Judge agreed the offer by the seller was deemed as a good will gesture and not an admission of liability. The Judge held the Claimant did not provide evidence  in support of what the problem was nor that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality or was present at the time of sale to establish the claim therefore as the Claimant failed to prove the case, the claim was dismissed and the Claimant was ordered to pay the transport costs of the Defendant (our client).

Roxanne Bradley

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.