Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

legal updates

Our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure.

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 low coolant warning light showed within a week of the purchase of a nine-year-old Volvo and was returned to the dealership which drained and topped up the coolant.

The warning light reappeared just over six months later and the Claimant took the vehicle to a third-party mechanic who did the same thing, drained and topped up the coolant. A month later, the Claimant was told by a main dealer the vehicle required a new engine. The Claimant issued proceedings against our member for the full cost of the vehicle. 

In cross-examination, the Claimant accepted it was more than six months from purchase when the fault occurred and that she had driven 10,000 miles between the first warning light and the next. The Claimant argued that on the balance of probabilities, the warning light that appeared shortly after purchase was indicative of the fault that eventually led to the failure of the vehicle. 

In his evidence, our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure, and the water coolant warning was not necessarily the same issue. Our member argued that given the period of time before the fault occurred and the lack of expert evidence, the Claimant has not discharged her burden of proof given that more than six months had passed since the purchase. 

There was concern from the court over the same warning light being illuminated shortly after purchase and again before the fault, but agreed with our member that on the balance of probabilities, the Claimant would not have been able to cover 10,000 miles with an underlying fault and no further warning light being activated. The car was by no means an old wreck, but an older car of nine years old. Within a week, the low coolant warning light came on, and the Claimant returned it to our member, who topped up the coolant.

The car then functioned for over six months until the light came back on. The Claimant took it to a third party who drained and refilled the coolant. The light came back on after a few more weeks, and she took the vehicle to a main dealer who found a problem with the cylinder head and concluded it needed a replacement engine, rendering it beyond economic repair. 

The judge accepted the Claimant’s evidence about dates and warning lights. However, the main dealer diagnosis did not deal with the underlying problem, how or why it would arise, and whether they considered it was present at purchase. 

The Claimant argued a conclusion could be drawn that a fault was present at purchase due to the continuity of the warning light and that it provided a link between the two events. The judge was sympathetic to the Claimant, but could equally see our member’s point that there could be other problems and that the warning light hadn’t come back on for six months, so showed no indication of a continuing problem. The judge found it was not low coolant that had caused the failure but overheating, and that it was not present until more than six months after purchase. 

The case against our member was dismissed.

ECSC Group plcMore Secure

On average 55 vulnerabilities are identified daily.

What can I do?

Review your organisations priorities and ask ‘can we afford a breach?’. What do I do during an incident? Who do I involve? When do I involve the ICO?

If you’re unable to answers these questions, you need help from the experts.

Polly DaviesLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Broker Falls Flat: Court Dismisses Flimsy Claim Against Dealer

A County Court ruling has reinforced the importance of solid evidence and clear contracts, rejecting a broker’s claim against a car dealer over an alleged pre-existing fault.

Coincidence or Cause? When Timing Leads to Claims

A motorcycle engine seized just 30 miles after a service, sparking a claim of negligence. Find out how this case unfolded in court and why coincidence doesn’t always mean liability.

Elusive Vehicle Noises: What to Do When You Can’t Find the Fault

More customers are reporting strange noises that seem impossible to trace. Learn practical steps to recreate, record, and address these elusive issues while protecting your business.

Small Claims and Expert Fees: Understanding the £750 Cap

Parties should carefully consider the necessity and proportionality of obtaining expert evidence to avoid incurring irrecoverable costs.

AI is the future – but treat it with care!

AI can be a powerful ally—but recent cases show its misuse can lead to serious consequences, even contempt of court.

Major changes to UK Consumer Law have landed

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has introduced sweeping updates to UK consumer law, including powerful new enforcement tools for the CMA.

Buyer Beware: £4K Discovery claim falls flat in court

An opportunistic claim for nearly £9,000 on a £4,000 used vehicle was thrown out by the court, reinforcing the principle of caveat emptor in business-to-business sales.

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.