Be on the ball – it may cost you

legal updates

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

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.

Brave AgencyDriving growth in the automotive industry

Brave is an award-winning digital agency offering a comprehensive range of services aimed at helping your business grow. From rebrands and web development to marketing campaigns that get you noticed, we do it all. Since 2000, we’ve helped businesses across the automotive sector reach new heights. Could yours be next?

Roxanne BradleyLegal AdvisorRead 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.

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.

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.

Chargeback fraud – getting back a stolen car

Like many finance companies, when a consumer complains about a vehicle, banks are notoriously reluctant to back the dealer in a chargeback fraud issue.

The omni-channel approach and distance sales

The conclusion of a contract when purchasing a vehicle occurs when a deposit or the full purchase price is paid.

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.