Court Directions are an Order and not a Wish List!

legal updates

It was necessary for the Pre-Delivery Inspection document to have been submitted in evidence before the hearing.

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.

These were the words of a District Judge at a recent hearing we attended on behalf of a client.  He felt it was necessary for the Pre-Delivery Inspection document to have been submitted in evidence before the hearing, along with a Witness Statement from the person who undertook it.

On the face of it this may appear to be of value but I have to argue to the contrary on occasions.  For how can anyone remember what they did a year previously, especially if that is a regular activity as was the case here?  Additionally, as the PDI is an internal document and not given to the buyer, then surely anyone can retrospectively write one in support of their submission that the car was not defective at the point of sale.

Our main argument was that the buyer had admitted that the front bumper of his vehicle only fell off when pressure was applied to it.  Therefore it was more likely than not that he discovered this only by having a low impact collision with something.  The court, nevertheless, felt that more had to be done by the selling garage to disprove that the car was not sold with an inherent defect.  In an unrelated case, however, the MOT pass certificate was produced as evidence as it had only passed the day before sale. Even so, the court determined that it had not been properly MOT’d!

Without wishing to be too cynical, it seems to me that the buying consumer only has to say something in order for it to be considered true whereas a selling dealer has to show, not on the balance of probabilities but beyond all reasonable doubt, that the consumer is wrong.  

The Court also concluded that even though:

  • The consumer had been driving the vehicle for over a year.   
  • The bumper was held in position except for when it became detached from the bracket “when pressure was applied” and, wait for it… 
  • The consumer had not even had the bumper fixed. Yet the Court still found the vehicle not to be of satisfactory quality/fit for purpose. The buyer was awarded nearly £50 in order for it to be fixed even without the need to show that it ever was or will be!

On a more encouraging note we did manage to significantly reduce the amount of the claim by challenging a number of alleged other losses that were disproportionate, unforeseeable and/or purely speculative. 

WeRecruit Auto LtdPermanent Automotive Recruitment from an experienced and trustworthy recruitment partner.

We cover roles within all departments and sectors of the Automotive industry, and are here to listen to your specific needs and find the most suitable candidates to fit your business.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Customer reneges on agreed not distance sale

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

Consumer “Handcuffed” by Deduction for Use Settlement

Don’t sign any contract unless you are fully aware of its terms!

Court management service raises money for charity

Members can leave the legal worries to us and can focus on their core business of selling vehicles, running their service and repair garages, and/or MOT testing centres.

Double or nothing – Consumer’s claim dismissed!

The Claimant countered with a request for more than double the amount that our member had offered.

Non-refundable deposits – Where do you stand?

Relevant paperwork should be provided before payment is taken.

Used car warranties – What are you liable for?

If a fault is found to have been developing at the time of sale, this could become the trader’s responsibility to provide a remedy.

Distance Selling Regulations – A thing of the past?

The regulations only apply to consumer contracts, not business-to-business sales, and only apply to sales conducted at a distance.

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.