Car Dealer fined £134,000 for “Wasting Consumer’s Time”!

legal updates

They were prosecuted under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

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.

No doubt there will be plenty of happy faces sitting around the Christmas dinner table that seats the Trading Standards team of Middlesbrough Council this year.  For we very much suspect that they will be unable to contain their excitement over the fact that a court has fined a car dealer £134,000 – because they failed to advertise that the “one former keeper” (or variations of it) happened to be a lease company.

They were prosecuted under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. 

The Judge stated that “In my view an average consumer would be misled by such a description if applied to an ex-hire company vehicle without further clarification. I therefore find that the identity of the one registered keeper as a car rental business is information the average consumer needs.”
The fine imposed was such because the group were found guilty two years ago for the same issue.  On that occasion they were fined £4000.

This case highlights why it is vital to advertise any matters concerning a car that might impact on the decision of the average consumer to buy it. The courts are clearly establishing that whilst factually correct, statements such as in this case, are misleading and punishable.

So, if you can see from the V5 document or if you know from where you sourced a car from, that it has been used previously as a hire car, lease car, taxi, driving instructor vehicle or similar, then you MUST say so in the ADVERT of the vehicle, whether it be advertised online or in the windscreen at point of sale.

In this particular instance the would-be consumer did not even buy the car.  He saw from the V5 that the previous owner was a leasing company (very obviously named as such) and decided not to continue.  He reported the matter to Trading Standards because he felt the garage had wasted his time.
Of course, it must be remembered that this was the second occasion within 18 months that this mis-advertising had been brought before the court.

The argument for such a hefty sanction is based both on that fact and the fact that the only way to deter repeat offending is to give a penalty that acts as a true deterrent.  For example, a court won’t fine a Premier League footballer £100 for a minor motoring offence in the same way that they might if you or I had done the same thing.  But £134,000 does seem rather excessive – no matter how much money you have in the bank – given the actual “offence”.

We gather they intend to appeal.  We wish them well.

Lawgistics often get involved in assisting clients who are being pestered by Trading Standards and, where appropriate, we will even sit in on the formal interviews under caution.  The earlier you get us involved the better


Need help with keeping on track with FCA Regulation and Compliance? Partner with Automotive Compliance

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

License to Copy

Companies use software to find where their images are being used, and this is how and why you would then receive a letter.

Customer reneges on agreed not distance sale

Our member explained they do not offer a delivery service and do not engage in distance selling.

Consumer “Handcuffed” by Deduction for Use Settlement

Don’t sign any contract unless you are fully aware of its terms!

Commission Disclosure Court Cases – Playing the Long Game

For our member, there were no costs as they did not have to employ an expensive solicitor.

Double or nothing – Consumer’s claim dismissed!

The Claimant countered with a request for more than double the amount that our member had offered.

Non-refundable deposits – Where do you stand?

Relevant paperwork should be provided before payment is taken.

Used car warranties – What are you liable for?

If a fault is found to have been developing at the time of sale, this could become the trader’s responsibility to provide a remedy.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

01480 455500

Vinpenta House
High Causeway

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.