Consumer claim against Lawgistics dismissed

legal updates

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

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.


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

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 TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Deposit and Fair Contractual Terms

Explore the intricacies of contract commitments and the bounds of consumer rights in our latest analysis, where a £3000 deposit dispute underscores the significance of clear terms and buyer responsibilities.

Assist your consumer… before it’s too late

If a consumer is ignored or refused assistance by you, and a repair is carried out, you will no longer be able to inspect the failed component.

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.

Consequential Losses

General stress and anxiety is not recoverable, otherwise everybody would claim it, similarly the time spent in dealing with a claim is generally not recoverable.

Car sold with a fault

Ensure the consumer is aware, understands, and most importantly, accepts the vehicle is subject to fault.

What you pay for is what you get

The consumer presented our member with the bill because they wrongly thought they had the right to do what they wanted.

Customer reneges on agreed not distance sale

Our member explained they do not offer a delivery service and do not engage in distance selling.

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.