Court cases and cambelts

legal_updates

The evidence showed that it was the failure of the crank pulley and not the cam belt that was the actual cause of the damage.

Author: Nona Bowkis
Published:
Reading time: 1 minute

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.

This is always a tricky area as if you sell a car which is overdue a cam belt change, you could arguably be found liable for any damage from it failing.

Especially if you have advertised the vehicle as having a full service history or if you claim to have serviced the vehicle ready for delivery. One of our dealers was in court recently against a customer who was trying to claim that the damage to her engine had been caused by the cam belt being overdue a change.

However, in this case, the evidence showed that it was the failure of the crank pulley and not the cam belt that was the actual cause of the damage. The customer’s own report from her chosen garage was very helpful to us in proving that. If we didn’t have that report, we could have commissioned an independent report to back up our defence.

However, in this instance, it wasn’t necessary and the judge dismissed the customer’s case in its entirety.

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.