Claim for full refund on a £1000 vehicle – Case dismissed

legal updates

The judge’s finding was that he was not satisfied to the relevant standard of proof the car had failed to comply with the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

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.

The Claimant purchased a 15-year-old vehicle for £1000 in December 2017.  Proceedings were issued for a full refund on 20th October 2020 after three years of ownership and use of over 8000 miles.

The judge asked the Claimant what remedy she was seeking, and it was the Claimant’s position she should not have been sold the car in the first place and she has had to spend more money on the car than expected.  The judge asked the Claimant what law she was relying on.  The Claimant said she wanted compensation.  The judge asked her to clarify if she were seeking damages and she said she wanted a refund.  The judge said, in that case, the car would need to be returned to the Defendant and the Claimant said she had scrapped the car at the end of 2020. 

The judge summarised the Claimant’s claim in the following synopsis by the representative: 

The Claimant does not dispute the vehicle was 15 years of age with around 94,000 miles on the clock when purchased for £1000.  The Claimant set out the issues that developed with the vehicle.  The first one being a spring that broke and was repaired under warranty.  Issues appeared with the engine managed light, an issue with the starter motor which was replaced as an expense she had to pay and the engine temperature gauge kept coming on, the cooler ball was empty and that persisted and eventually the engine was replaced by the Defendant at a cost of £500 to the Claimant.  Shortly after that she discovered the oil was empty and took it to a different garage for refill.  She says that there has been problem with the coolant and the oil with the vehicle which she had to top up.  There was an issue with the seatbelt which she says is on the passengers side, the MOT certificate says it was the offside.  She says there was a problem with the exhaust part that cracked and needed 4 screws.  She says there as an issue with the boot leaking and it was repaired in a bad way according to someone else who’s evidence, I don’t have.  The Claimant would have preferred to have kept her old vehicle. 

The Defendant’s evidence is set out in his witness statement.  Under cross examination the Defendant said he had replaced the engine to fix a problem in the most cost effective way for the Claimant.  He could not comment on the subsequent oil light illumination or leaks as he did not see the vehicle to inspect it. 

S19(14) and (15) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 create a rebuttable presumption that if goods fail within 6 months of purchase they were not of satisfactory quality.

The judge informed it was for the Claimant to prove on the balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the Defendant was in breach of contract and that she was entitled to the remedy sought.

The judge’s finding was that he was not satisfied to the relevant standard of proof the car had failed to comply with the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  The Claimant’s evidence whilst, with the best of intention, lacked supporting material and the judge took into account the specifics of this type of contract which was the purchase of a vehicle for £1000 and a reconditioned engine. 

The case was dismissed.  


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.

Polly DaviesLegal 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.

The law is not an exact science

We have all had surefire winners fail due to the smallest issue, but equally, we have all won cases that we had no right to.

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.

It’s official – the Civil Procedure Rules are no longer “New”!

One might reasonably ask oneself: “Why is any of this of interest to me?”

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!

The court finds car dealer partly liable for damage caused by the removal of a sticker!

Due to COVID-19, the court held an Early Neutral Evaluation, a 30-minute telephone assessment of each party’s position.

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.