In a novel twist we have recently attended Court to face a claim brought against us by a consumer.
By way of background, the consumer purchased a Subaru Impreza from a supplying dealer in the usual way and was supplied with one of our self administered ‘Driver’ warranties.
The Warranty terms make it plain that ‘…the Supplying Dealer promises to repair or replace any covered component which suffers mechanical or electrical failure’.
Through Driver Administration we engaged with the Consumer, on behalf of our client dealer, in respect of a contested warranty claim.
Unfortunately, the Consumer failed to engage in meaningful dialogue and wrongly determined to sue us direct for the cost of repairs.
Naturally, we defended the claim strenuously and at the first opportunity invited the Court to strike the claim out on the basis that the Consumer had failed to disclose any or any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim against us.
The matter was listed for a preliminary hearing to determine whether or not the case should be allowed to continue to a small claims hearing.
We represented ourselves before the Court at a short hearing.
The Judge held there was no contract between us and the Consumer and we had been wrongly sued.
He went on to say that we had merely provided advice and assistance to our client/the supplying dealer, in much the same way as a solicitor and client relationship, which does not give rise to a direct claim in any event.
Impression works with businesses across the automotive aftermarket supply chain such as parts suppliers, warehouse distributors, motor factors and independent garages. Covering all aspects of automotive aftermarket marketing, including social media, event management, customer newsletters and PR, Impression is able to quickly establish itself within a client’s business and work towards their objectives.
Since the matter was determined at a hearing, the Claim was dismissed.
Suffice to say, the Consumer was most displeased.
During a candid exchange of views outside the Court, the Consumer unreasonably and without just cause sought to question and criticise our conduct in this matter, which had been beyond reproach.
He went on to profess being employed by a ‘proper’ renowned multinational law firm headquartered in London, who shall remain nameless.
That being the case, frankly, he should have known better!
