Correction to previous advice from Trading Standards


This can result in the dealer being forced to pay out on a case for which he has no legal liability.

Author: Nona Bowkis
Reading time: 3 minutes

This article is 6 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.

Further to our story last week ‘Incorrect advice on ADR from Trading Standards’ we are pleased to note this week that Buckinghamshire & Surrey Trading Standards have sent out a letter to correct the mis-information they sent out to traders last week.

However……the new letter (fig.1) which could have simply said.….’we would like to clarify that the information given out in our previous letter regarding the legal obligation to name an ADR provider in your terms and conditions and on your website is only applicable to dealers who are members of a Trade Association whose membership rules require them to use ADR. All other dealers, have no obligation to participate in ADR other than having a requirement to advise consumers about ADR at the final stage of any complaint’. Instead the already confused dealers were sent the attached, more of which in a later Lawgistics Legal Update.

Staying with ADR for now, the above point is really quite important as many of the new ADR bodies, all of whom have to pay a substantial fee to Trading Standards to be approved and authorised to operate, will charge a dealer to get involved. In many cases the decision of the ADR provider will be binding and so no court will ever get to look at the facts and properly consider the law. This can result in the dealer being forced to pay out on a case for which he has no legal liability and on top of that, being charged up to £350 for  the privilege.

Now of course ADR has its place and it is not totally without merit but in many of the cases we see where consumers come to the table believing it is their right for their used car to be as new, ADR is not a cost effective or fair way of resolving matters and so Trading Standards must be careful not to wrongly force dealers into following a part of the law which simply does not apply to them.

*to be fair to Trading Standards, the RMI also gave out the wrong information to traders last week (fig.2). However, they simply corrected it after we pointed it out.

If you have any doubts about where you stand with ADR or the CRA2015 Lawgistics members can contact the legal team.

Trading Standards updated letter regarding ADR (fig.1)

RMI incorrect advice regarding ADR 

Nona Bowkis

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.