Author: Nona Bowkis
Published: August 31, 2016
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 5 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.
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.