Court success on vehicle with a mileage discrepancy

legal updates

The Claimant issued proceedings against our member for the full cost of the vehicle and the cost of the repairs by the main dealer for misrepresentation.

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.

There was success in court last month when the judge determined that misrepresentation was not proven by the Claimant.

The case involved an eight-year-old vehicle sold in 2017 for around £6000 with the odometer reading 102,000 at the point of sale.  No mileage anomaly was unearthed by an Experian check and our member’s invoice stated, “We have been unable to confirm the mileage shown on this odometer and therefore it must be taken as incorrect.”

The car had passed an MOT with no advisories on the day before sale and was in good and satisfactory condition. 

In early 2018, with the odometer reading 120,000, the Claimant had the vehicle fully serviced with the fuel and filter and the EGR valve changed.  No faults were identified and no concerns raised. 

The following month, the vehicle passed an MOT with no advisories.

Later in 2018, the Claimant took the car to a third party mechanic and following that, they took it to a main dealer who carried out considerable repair work to the tune of £2700.  Nonetheless, the vehicle failed shortly afterwards, and the main dealer instructed their insurers who carried out an investigation and a mileage discrepancy in the MOT history came to light. 

The Claimant issued proceedings against our member for the full cost of the vehicle and the cost of the repairs by the main dealer for misrepresentation. 

The Claimant was offered a settlement based on the value of the vehicle at the point of sale with the higher mileage which the Claimant turned down, a decision they presumably now regret.  The judge highlighted the presence of the disclaimer on the sales invoice in relation to the odometer and the checks the Defendant undertook prior to sale.  The Claimant did not, until the final hearing, claim the Defendant made any specific representation about the mileage.  The judge would have expected to have seen references to specific statements made about the mileage by the Defendant to induce the Claimant to purchase in pleadings or the Claimant’s witness statement but there were none.  As such, the judge decided he could not accept the oral evidence given by the Claimant under cross examination and the case was dismissed. 

Our member was asked if they wished to claim lost earnings of a maximum of £95 and/or reasonable travel expenses which they graciously declined to do. 

Automotive ComplianceWE TALK YOUR LANGUAGE, WE KNOW YOUR BUSINESS

Need help with keeping on track with FCA Regulation and Compliance? Partner with Automotive Compliance

Polly DaviesLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Commission Disclosure Court Cases

The majority of the cases where court proceedings have been issued about commission disclosure are because our members have either ignored the correspondence or just decided not to engage with these fine upstanding companies.

Do NOT try to take away a consumer’s rights on an invoice

A Welsh Trading Standards department prosecuted a car dealer for “Furnishing a used car invoice to a consumer giving the impression that the consumer had less rights than they actually did.”

Misleading adverts results in £58,000 fine

The result should serve as a warning to all traders to ensure vehicles are accurately described.

What’s that pain between your shoulders? It’s the Trading Standards’ knife in your back!

Trading Standards are meant to provide help and suggestions to ensure future compliance.

Customer ordered to pay our client’s court costs in mileage dispute

A mileage disclaimer sticker was also displayed on dashboard at the time of sale, advising that the mileage must be deemed incorrect unless otherwise stated in writing.

Statutory rights as a trader – B2B

Traders are offered protection under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA) and the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

Misrepresentation? Not without an untrue statement

On the evidence, there was no question that our member had complied with his obligations under the Consumer Rights Act, fully.

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.