Claim dismissed – another win for a client

legal updates

Remember, it is the Claimant's case to prove on the balance of probabilities.

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.

A consumer purchased a second-hand Maserati from our client. 

Our client was diligent with their advertisement and correctly advertised the vehicle with “documented service history”. As part of the agreement, the Defendant (our client) agreed to undertake and incur the cost of a service using main dealer parts which was accepted by the Claimant (the consumer). 

The Claimant incurred a separate cost for a paint and upholstery treatment/protection which was undertaken prior to the vehicle leaving the Defendant’s possession. A MOT test had been carried out as well as a pre-delivery inspection. 

Three months later, the Claimant contacted the Defendant in relation to the vehicle’s service history. The Claimant felt he had been mis-sold the vehicle as he believed the car that he purchased had a full service history. 

No, he had not been mis-sold the vehicle! The car was advertised with a “documented service history” and there was no reference to the vehicle being advertised with a full-service history. The Claimant inspected the vehicle’s documentation prior to placing a deposit. 

Although the Claimant believed he had been mis-sold the vehicle, and prior to issuing proceedings, the Claimant authorised a main dealer to undertake a major service of the vehicle and then expected our client, the Defendant, to pick up the cost. The final amount requested included a loan vehicle, brake fluid replacement and replacement brake pads! 

Whilst the service history of the vehicle was the Claimant’s main grievance, for good measure, he also included the cost of a replacement tyre (2,000 additional miles had been covered) and for the paint and upholstery treatment/protection. 

The Claimant alleged that at the time of sale, the tyre was below the legal requirements and the paint and upholstery treatment/protection was not sufficient. No evidence was supplied to support the allegations of the paint and upholstery treatment/protection being inadequate, to the tyre being substandard at the point of sale, or the supposed cost incurred. 

So, the parties had their day in court… And, rightfully so, the case was dismissed!

Our client was able to rely on the MOT test and their pre-delivery inspection to show the vehicle’s tyres were within the legal requirements and they were able to refer to their advertisement regarding the service history. 

WeRecruit Auto LtdPermanent Automotive Recruitment from an experienced and trustworthy recruitment partner.

We cover roles within all departments and sectors of the Automotive industry, and are here to listen to your specific needs and find the most suitable candidates to fit your business.

The Claimant had failed to show the incurred costs were necessary.  He was unable to provide evidence to show the tyres were illegal at the point of sale, the treatment/protection was insufficient and  the vehicle was mis-sold in relation to the service history. 

Remember, it is the Claimant’s case to prove on the balance of probabilities. However, in this matter the Claimant had not discharged the burden of proof and, therefore, the claim failed.

Roxanne BradleyLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

How would you like to pay: cash, card, or crypto?

Crypto is a virtually unregulated payment method and does not have any statutory backing, unlike the S75 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Consumers will be unable to request an “undo” on the transaction and rely entirely on the seller to willingly provide a refund.

Why bother with Pre-Delivery Inspection Forms (PDI)?

It is easy to go around a vehicle, giving everything a cursory glance and just ticking the boxes to say you have looked at it.

A reasonable price to be paid for a service

The defendant paid only a portion of the invoice, promising to pay the remainder in good time, and took the vehicle.

Can an entire family bring court proceedings for an alleged defective car?

Luckily the Ruffles’ family dog didn’t turn up either as no doubt Pooch would have been allowed a woof on the witness stand too!

Car Dealers and Consumers – A Modern Day Tale

Ambulance chasers and chancer consumers are two pet hates of the legal team and we relish dealing with their issues here at Lawgistics.

The real difference between claims under and over £10k

Litigation isn’t always just about having a strong argument, there are many factors that can help you win a case and reduce your risk.

Warranty or Statutory Rights

We all regularly hear comments that a warranty covers consumer rights and there is a cut off of those rights once the warranty expires.

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.