Be on the ball – it may cost you


Our client had agreed a sale but on taking payment via a card machine, the amount was short by £500.

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.

This month we have had some unfortunate legal queries due to unfortunate clerical errors that clients have found to have been costly!

We’ve recently had to commence court action where a client mistakenly took an underpayment for a vehicle.  Our client had agreed a sale but on taking payment via a card machine, the amount was short by £500. The mistake not spotted by our client at first and the new owner of the vehicle drove away happily. Whether they were or were not aware of the £500 underpayment is arguable. Once our client had realised the clerical error, they got in contact with the customer and explained the unfortunate mistake and asked for the outstanding £500. They received a swift refusal for any further payment. With no co operation with the customer, our client’s only option was to commence court proceedings, which in itself has incurred further costs.  With our help, the client was able to recover the full amount, including fees, however this process took a considerable amount of time, and could have been costly, if enforcement proceedings had not been successful.

A similar case occurred when a client sold a vehicle but unfortunately forgot about the VAT!  All paperwork was completed without including the VAT figure.  It proved near impossible to pursue any claim, on the basis that the customer was likely to argue that the agreed contractual amount for the vehicle was the lesser, without VAT price. A costly lesson for the dealer involved.  It is important that all facts and figures are correct on all paperwork.

So always check – and double check!

Advice on difficult customers or problematic transactions, Members contact the Legal Helpline.

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.