Author: Nona Bowkis
Published: August 30, 2021
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 3 years old.
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.
