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.

Connected Car FinanceReady to take the connected approach?

We’re here to ensure all used car dealerships deliver a better car finance experience for their customers. With over 4,000 approved dealer partners we ensure you are properly supported and connected with a range of flexible finance options, allowing you to lend and your customers to buy in complete confidence.

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 TilneyLegal 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.

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.

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!

Car Dealers and Consumers – A Modern Day Tale

Ambulance chasers and chancer consumers are two pet hates of the legal team and we relish dealing with their issues here at Lawgistics.

Warranty or Statutory Rights

We all regularly hear comments that a warranty covers consumer rights and there is a cut off of those rights once the warranty expires.

Classic Car Warranties

A wise dealer in classic cars should, if they really wish to cover the risk of selling to an uninformed buyer, point out limitations of the original design.

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.