Court refuses to allow Claimant to increase amount of claim – and you can see why!

legal updates

The taxi driver Claimant was also seeking to get a refund of all payments.

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.

In a long running case, our client was the second Defendant where the Claimant, a taxi driver, was attempting to recover his loss of earnings for alleged (but denied) failed repairs. 

The taxi driver Claimant was also seeking to get a refund of all payments he made to the first Defendant, a finance company, even though he had owned the car for almost three years and done more than 70,000 miles in it. Optimistic? Well, the most bizarre was about to follow….

For the Claimant’s lawyers sought to increase the amount of the total claim from £20,000 to an eyewatering loss of earnings claim of £300,000! Yes, three hundred thousand pounds! It was, in brief, a claim for over £50,000 worth of annual losses up to 2024! As I said, wholly bizarre.

Suffice to say, the judge refused outright and denied the claim to be increased by any amount whatsoever. Although this was a preliminary hearing, the judge’s final comments to the Claimant’s lawyer included he hoped her client had: “…very deep pockets.”

Our client was awarded their advocate’s costs of telephone attendance of £540.

DMS NavigatorDealer Management System software for Car Sales, Aftersales and eCommerce

Our dealers use us to help them be more Efficient and Profitable!

You can use our Dealer and Lead Management software to integrate all dealership departments, both online and physical ; providing all in-house functions; Invoicing, Stock Management, Accounting and Marketing as well as interfacing for advertising, ecommerce and more.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Sale or Return: Why “Private Sale” won’t save you from Consumer Rights Act responsibilities

Dealers using Sale or Return cannot hide behind “private sale” labels unless the agency position is made crystal clear from the advert onward. Miss that step and you risk CRA 2015 claims and a DMCCA 2024 breach.

30 Days to Hand the Keys Back: How the Short-Term Right to Reject Really Works

Think a new fault lets buyers walk away, no questions asked? Not quite. Discover why the burden of proof is on the consumer, and how dealers can stay one step ahead.

Don’t Get Caught Out: Why Your Car Warranty Won’t Shield You from the Consumer Rights Act

Think a watertight warranty protects you from refund demands? Think again. We explain how the Consumer Rights Act trumps any small print and what dealers must do to stay safe, or risk costly claims.

When no title means no sale

Four years after selling a Range Rover, a trader was hit with a demand for a full refund when the vehicle was seized in Spain.

Coincidence or Cause? When Timing Leads to Claims

A motorcycle engine seized just 30 miles after a service, sparking a claim of negligence. Find out how this case unfolded in court and why coincidence doesn’t always mean liability.

Elusive Vehicle Noises: What to Do When You Can’t Find the Fault

More customers are reporting strange noises that seem impossible to trace. Learn practical steps to recreate, record, and address these elusive issues while protecting your business.

AI is the future – but treat it with care!

AI can be a powerful ally—but recent cases show its misuse can lead to serious consequences, even contempt of court.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

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.