Claim for return of goods dismissed with substantial costs in favour of our trade member

legal updates

After a false start, when no judge could be found for several months, the case eventually came back on and to trial when a specialist barrister was instructed at cost to represent our member before the court.

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.

So was the recent outcome of a hard-fought and acrimonious case, which at times was more akin to a bitter family dispute than a consumer one, that lasted the best part of two (2) years and concerned the ownership of a vehicle sold to our member by a member of the public, which she asserted was hers to sell but her estranged ex had suggested otherwise.

In turn, the vehicle was sold on to trade but following this the ex-partner came forth and claimed ownership.

To avoid hefty solicitor’s costs, which would have exceeded the amount at issue and involved fighting battles on two fronts while simultaneously bringing a third, we advised our member to take the vehicle back from trade and focus all our efforts on proving that it had acquired good title from the seller.

After seeing off the first set of solicitors, albeit by agreement and in short order, we next saw off a traditionally cocksure second set. After fighting them to a standstill over a protracted period, they slunk off leaving their lay client to fend for himself, mostly badly.

We continued assisting in the preparation of our member’s case while managing conflicting interests and multiple lay witness requirements with the singular goal of proving that good title in the vehicle had passed to our member and in what became a rather unorthodox alliance for justice.

After a false start, when no judge could be found for several months, the case eventually came back on and to trial when a specialist barrister was instructed at cost to represent our member before the court.

Suffice to say, after hearing all the evidence the judge found that the vehicle had been a gift to the seller and she had good title to pass it on to our member. The right result in the end, but a long and expensive exercise for all concerned, brought about perhaps more out of rancour than any real conviction.


Need help with keeping on track with FCA Regulation and Compliance? Partner with Automotive Compliance

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

To Be or Not To Be Remains the Legal Question

The Claimant had sought to reject a commercial van that he had been using for business purposes but alleged that he was a consumer.

Always Deal with Court Documents

This cost our member an application fee to the court, plus a legal representative at court for the hearing.

Warning to all! You must follow the orders of the court!

Had the consumer been reasonable, this issue could have been resolved without going to court.

Claim struck out for non-attendance

A twelve year old van, had been sold to a business without a warranty and more than 130,000 miles on the clock.

Consequential loss: “There has to be a limit for which the defendant is held responsible.”

The consumer argued that she was unable to buy another vehicle since she could not afford one, hence the scale of her claim for transport costs.

What? You want me to pay after nearly 6 years?

After 5 years, 8 months, and 41,000 miles, there was a problem with the vehicle, and it ultimately required a new engine costing £4,600.

Don’t be late!!!

As our member was leaving the court, the Claimant arrived, approximately 15 minutes after the allotted time.

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.