Consumer claim against Lawgistics dismissed


The Supplying Dealer promises to repair or replace any covered component which suffers mechanical or electrical failure

Author: Howard Tilney
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 5 years 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.

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.

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!

Howard Tilney

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.