A claim arose from the purchase of a used vehicle in 2021 with a 12-month warranty.
Prior to the sale, the vehicle had undergone its pre-delivery inspections as appropriate which did not identify any issues, although it was re-gassed some three months after the sale.
A few days before the warranty expired, the customer complained about a central locking issue and the air conditioning having ceased to function.
Having been advised to book it in for diagnostic checks before making a warranty claim, the customer went ahead to authorise repairs for work on his vehicle without informing the dealer.
A bill of nearly £2,000 was received by our member for payment. The customer had already paid for the repairs without the prior knowledge and consent of either the warranty company or the dealership.
Thereafter a dispute arose as to whether the hands-free door lock and the air conditioning system were both not working from the time of sale. While mediation had been ongoing pre-issue, the Claimant ignored its findings and by the time the dispute reached the court, our member was faced with a claim of around £3,500.
The evidence presented by the Claimant was described by the judge as “sporadic.” He provided little to no evidence in support of his claims, other than a video which he claimed was evidence, but which the judge properly ruled was not permissible.
The Claimant had refused conference with our member and their legal counsel at court before the hearing and insisted the outcome of the mediation report had factual errors (which he could not evidence) in addition to having provided no witness evidence.
On questioning by the judge, it transpired the Claimant complained of the air-conditioning some three months post-sale which was then fixed. He did not complain about the air-conditioning until nine months later, but he failed to report it when he realised there was an issue and instead incurred costs that he was not entitled to recover.
The question of the door locks was also addressed where on the facts, an issue had been identified several weeks after the sale that the dealer was unable to investigate at the time because the Claimant did nothing about it for a year and took it for extensive repairs at another dealership 12 months later.
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.
Based on the available evidence, the judge held 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, but the remainder of his unsubstantiated claims were dismissed.
Members must always strive to keep meticulous records of their interactions with customers about repairs and or complaints of issues regardless of the warranty. You must be proactive in directing customers to make warranty claims in good time in accordance with its policy terms and conditions. Do not leave such things to time and chance in the hope a pragmatic judge will always proactively sieve through a Claimant’s evidence, or lack thereof, in your favour.
The principle that dealers are not obliged to meet any third-party repairs costs incurred without their prior knowledge and consent remains good law, but recognising the differences between resolutions expected under the Consumer Rights Act and those of warranty agreements will help avoid situations where members are saddled with repair costs months, or even years, after the fact as was the case here. This member’s diligence in their dealings with the Claimant for more than 12 months enabled our litigation team to build on that consistency in its defence and witness evidence in court, resulting in a largely favourable outcome.
