Another Lawgistics member win!

legal updates

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jide-Ofor OkagbueLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

An eventful small claims hearing

Discover how a simple oversight in witness representation and off-screen coaching at a remote hearing can dramatically impact legal outcomes, underscoring the critical need for adherence to procedural rules and proper pre-action conduct in our latest insightful article.

From initial complaint to court claim form – let us help you

You can feel assured that court deadlines are attended to with the required attention and specialism.

Is it time to ditch “Dear Sirs”?

Clearly, “Dear Sirs” is old-fashioned, but is it sexist?

Location, Location, Mislocation: A costly oversight in court attendance

What the unfortunate Claimants (husband and wife) had not appreciated, was that the hearing was listed for the court at Central London.

Court re-instates a claim because of its own error!

One wonders how many times the courts have made the same error.

To Be or Not To Be Remains the Legal Question

The Claimant had sought to reject a commercial van that he had been using for business purposes but alleged that he was a consumer.

Always Deal with Court Documents

This cost our member an application fee to the court, plus a legal representative at court for the hearing.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

01480 455500

Vinpenta House
High Causeway

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.