Court win shows the importance of evidence

legal updates

Consumers don’t always win even if the fault occurred within the first six months of purchase.

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 was taken to court by a consumer who claimed the car was faulty when sold. They had driven 4700 miles in five months before there was an issue.

The issue was related to oil starvation which was mentioned in the roadside report. We sought to blame the consumer for poor maintenance which they denied. They also refused our client the opportunity to inspect the vehicle and instead had their own “report” written that claimed the oil was topped up to its normal level and therefore, it was not an issue of poor maintenance. This not only contradicted the roadside report but did not match the symptoms of the fault.

We wanted an independent engineer to go and inspect the oil to see how new or otherwise it was, but the consumer refused. They had the car repaired making it nigh on impossible to determine the actual cause of the failure.

In court, the consumer was pulled up for denying our client the opportunity to inspect the vehicle and the judge dismissed his claim. Great result for our client and a reminder that the court does expect all parties to act reasonably, not just the dealers.

Proof, if needed, that if a court case is managed reasonably and properly, consumers don’t always win even if the fault occurred within the first six months of purchase.

Connected Car FinanceReady to take the connected approach?

We’re here to ensure all used car dealerships deliver a better car finance experience for their customers. With over 4,000 approved dealer partners we ensure you are properly supported and connected with a range of flexible finance options, allowing you to lend and your customers to buy in complete confidence.

Nona BowkisHead of Legal Services / SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Your Evidence Is Vital

As opposing witnesses give different accounts of what has happened, some cases really will hinge on which version of events the judge prefers.

Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

Our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure.

Finance Company Unhappy with Court Ruling

The court found that the claim and particulars were inadequate and the finance company was told they had to submit a compliant claim/particulars.

Disclose or not to disclose, that is the question

It is imperative that you know what is required to be disclosed, when to disclose the documents, and what your legal duty is both before proceedings and when a claim is issued.

Indemnities – Handle with Care!

Indemnity clauses are usually onerous by design and drafted in broad terms so dealers should not make the mistake of overlooking them.

Detailed records avoid post-sale issues

The Claimant was only entitled to compensation for the cost of repairs to the locks, which were considered likely to have been faulty at the point of sale and was awarded £385.

Claimant failed to satisfy the burden of proof

No real evidence to suggest the extant problems with his vehicle were in any way related to the repairs that had been undertaken

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.