Catalytic Convertor Theft – is the seller responsible?!

legal updates

It would be ridiculous to suggest that every car dealer has to mention to a potential buyer that something on or in a vehicle might be attractive to thieves

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.

Well, according to one irate purchaser they are!  

The consumer purchased a vehicle from our client.  He parks it outside of his house and one evening some local thieves come along and extract the catalytic convertor. That consumer then seeks to reject the car because its design is not fit for purpose in that it allows the catalytic convertor to be stolen too easily.  Additionally or alternatively, he wanted to reject it because of a misrepresentation by the dealer for NOT mentioning that his car was at risk of having the component stolen.

Not surprisingly, we wrote advising that our client could not be held liable.

As the consumer paid on his credit card he went to his card provider under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act – joint liability of the credit card provider – who, instead of dismissing it out of hand, asked our client to explain why they felt they were not liable for breach of contract and/or misrepresentation!  So we told them in no uncertain terms.  We mentioned that it would be ridiculous to suggest that every car dealer has to mention to a potential buyer that something on or in a vehicle might be attractive to thieves – whether it be the catalytic convertor, the wheels, the fuel or the badge on the radiator grille.

We somewhat sarcastically reminded the card company that we hoped that they had told their customer prior to taking their credit card that it ran the risk of it being stolen – as otherwise he would have them for misrepresentation if someone nicked his card from his wallet when he wasn’t looking!  A reply has not (yet) been received.

InvolutionSTAFF UNIFORM | PROMOTIONAL WEAR | MERCHANDISE | BUSINESS GIFTS

Leading experts in print, promotional clothing, staff uniforms, branded merchandise and PPE. Involution is your brand partner for promotional marketing and workwear, a one-stop-shop for your branded marketing needs for any business size and industry.

Jason WilliamsLegal 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.

The customer isn’t always right…

As it was a defect he knew about, he cannot now claim it renders the vehicle not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.

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.

On your Marks… Get Set… Doh!

The TSO told our member that the consumer ought not to have experienced a failure given the age and mileage of the car.

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.

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.