Buying an allegedly faulty car – compensation for mental health deterioration

legal_updates

They demanded in the region of £2000 in compensation for the distress caused.

Author: Jason Williams
Published:
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 2 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.

One of our clients recently had a court claim issued against them because (they said) the car was not sold in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act.

An element of the claim contained words to the effect that they demanded in the region of £2000 in compensation for the distress caused – resulting in a deterioration in the buyer’s mental health.  Part of our  client’s defence was that if any part of a claim was for damages (compensation) for personal injury (physical, mental or psychological) then the whole claim was subject to compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol on Personal Injury  https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol/prot_pic 

And that as the amount sought was over £1000* the case had to be allocated to fast track not to small claims.  *£1000 is the threshold for personal injury claims to be held in the “small claims” track of the county court.  We invited the court to dismiss the whole of the claim because none of the Claimant’s actions prior to issuing the Claim had followed the mandatory Pre-Action protocol.

The court held a preliminary hearing and convinced the Claimant not to pursue the mental health aspect of the claim.  Indeed, one suspects that the Judge was generally unimpressed by the Claimant and encouraged the parties to come to a settlement out of court purely on the issue of the value of the car alone – and nothing else.  The parties agreed to such a settlement there and then, which was endorsed by the court – but not giving the Claimant anything towards the substantial issue fee that the Claimant had paid to issue the claim in the first place. 

Jason Williams

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.