County Court Win


The claimant had continued to drive the vehicle with the warning lights displayed,

Author: Roxanne Bradley
Reading time: 2 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.

A case we have been working on recently finally got to the hearing date.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is the applicable legislation as the vehicle was purchased after October 2015 therefore it is good to see how the Judges are interpreting the legislation.

Our client sold a second hand vehicle which was ten years old and had a reasonable amount mileage, 60k.

Two days after purchase the Claimant contacted our Client to report that lights were being displayed on the dashboard. Therefore our Client offered to inspect the vehicle and reminded the Claimant to utilise the roadside recovery which was provided as part of the agreement. Our Client heard nothing more until two days later. Again the Claimant reported “lights” on the dashboard were illuminated. Once more, our Client offered to inspect the vehicle, and once again they heard nothing.This happened a further 2 times until the Claimant requested a full refund of the vehicle.

It transpired, the claimant had continued to drive the vehicle with the warning lights displayed, believing this to be part of ‘normal motoring’. The Claimant did eventually provide evidence of a fault after our persistence. The evidence provided though only stated a crankshaft sensor costing £49.69

Our Client’s defence contained 3 main elements. The first and second being the onus on the Claimant to prove the vehicle had a fault, the fault would then need to render the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality (Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to entitle the Claimant to the Short Term Right to Reject). Whilst the Claimant did finally produce some documentation, a crankshaft sensor only costing £49.69 did not render the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality. The final element was that any damage which is caused by the Claimants own negligence is not something the trader is liable for!

Perhaps if the customer had returned the car when requested it would have saved themselves, our Client, Lawgistics and the Courts considerable time and effort in the resolution of this case.

Roxanne Bradley

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.