Another win for a Lawgistics client (and common sense) in court

legal updates

We offered to inspect but they failed to turn up to various appointments and then put in a claim for a refund and associated costs.

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.

This was a long ongoing case whereby the consumer wanted a refund. They had bought a 7 year old, 61,000 mile vehicle for £3995.   

They complained of a cross threaded spark plug. We offered to inspect but they failed to turn up to various appointments and then put in a claim for a refund and associated costs.

In the defence we prepared, the client asked the court to order an inspection and eventually we got to see the vehicle and we replaced the spark plug for less than £100. The vehicle was fine after that but the consumer wanted more including for us to pay for an independent report to say that the spark plus was fine and her court fees. We refused, the customer said they would continue all the way to the hearing despite us advising them they had no case as a £100 spark plus does not make a £4k vehicle not of satisfactory quality and so the claim should never have been issued.  

The consumer ignored our advice, paid out an extra £355 for the hearing fee and then promptly lost the case. Needless to say our client was very happy with the outcome as were we as it is further proof that common sense and proportionality can and do win over unrealistic consumer demands and expectations.  

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

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.

Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

Our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure.

Court Rules Against ‘Serial Returner’ in Distance Selling Dispute

It is clear from his evidence that his true intention was that he wanted the ability to reject the car at a time of his choosing.

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.