Claim dismissed – another win for a client


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

Author: Roxanne Bradley
Reading time: 3 minutes

This article is 12 months 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.

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. 

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 Bradley

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.