Court reduces consumer claim of £10,000 to just £230…

legal updates

The Judge found that the defects did not render the car of unsatisfactory quality at the point of sale

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.

Our client, a car dealer, recently faced a claim for damages for breach of contract arising from the sale of a Range Rover in September 2013. It had been alleged that the vehicle was of unsatisfactory quality from the point of sale contrary to section 14 (2) of the Sales of Goods Act 1979.

The claim included, amongst other things, car hire charges, the cost of a replacement gearbox, loss of earnings, the cost of a replacement warranty, interest and costs amounting to almost £10,000.

Our client was represented by a barrister at the Small Claims Hearing, which proved decisive.    

The Judge found that the car had suffered from a number of minor defects to include radio, coolant sensor, parking sensor, brake mud cover, missing CD multi changer cassette and front light wiper. Several of these faults had been repaired by the dealer pre issue. The Judge also accepted that the car had suffered a gearbox failure.

However, the Judge found that the defects did not render the car of unsatisfactory quality at the point of sale since they were not immediately present. The age and mileage of the car was also taken into account.

It was found that the gearbox failure was not a breach of contract given that it emerged some 15 months and 26,000 miles post sale.

The warranty did not cover the gearbox because the car had not been serviced at the required interval by the consumer. The fact that the dealer had agreed to repair the gearbox under warranty did not give rise to cause of action and the Judge accepted the dealers evidence that he agreed to repair the gearbox as a gesture of goodwill and in the interests of maintaining customer relations.

The costs of replacing the gearbox were therefore irrecoverable as were the costs of a hire car whilst the gearbox was repaired and a replacement warranty.

Further, the consumer failed to prove why it was necessary to incur £1,880 plus VAT to replace the entire sound system to overcome the radio fault. The Judge did not allow anything for that claim.

Accordingly, the Judge found that the only recoverable items were a coolant sensor (£9.50), parking sensor (£25), back plate (£39.50), headlight wiper mechanism (£105), VAT thereon (£35.80) plus the cost of a second hand CD cassette (£15). This produced a total award in favour of the consumer of just £229.80. All other claims against the dealer were dismissed and there was no order for costs.

Wearewood Services LtdMotor Trade Web Specialists

We offer an all-encompassing web, digital & design service specially tailored to the Motor Industry.

Court fees alone incurred by the consumer were more than three times the sum awarded!

Altogether, an excellent result for our client and a salutary lesson to any avaricious consumer.

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Assist your consumer… before it’s too late

If a consumer is ignored or refused assistance by you, and a repair is carried out, you will no longer be able to inspect the failed component.

Car sold with a fault

Ensure the consumer is aware, understands, and most importantly, accepts the vehicle is subject to fault.

What you pay for is what you get

The consumer presented our member with the bill because they wrongly thought they had the right to do what they wanted.

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.

Inspecting part-exchange vehicles

It is always a good idea to keep a paper trail for any transaction, especially in situations where representations are being made by a consumer.

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.