Disagreement over question to put to an expert

legal updates

The expert view on the likely condition at the point of sale is an essential question to establish whether on the balance of probabilities a trader is liable for the repair.

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.

The dispute involved a gearbox which allegedly required replacement after five months and four thousand miles of use.

The court gave directions for the parties to jointly instruct an expert to produce a CPR compliant report to assist the court.

The Claimant was insistent that the question: “Would, in your view, the gearbox have been faulty at the point of sale?” must not be put to the expert engineer. The Claimant took the view the expert was only required to report on the mechanical problem “present now” and argued that the court order giving direction in relation to an expert report did not state the expert needed to give an opinion on the likely condition at the point of sale. The Claimant would not see reason and we had to return to the court for direction.

S19 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides a rebuttable presumption that if goods fail within six months after purchase, they were not of satisfactory quality. S(19)(15)(a) makes clear that the presumption is rebuttable if it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on the day of purchase. The expert view on the likely condition at the point of sale is, therefore, an essential question to establish whether on the balance of probabilities a trader is liable for the repair.

Our member was not present at the hearing due to technical issues and the judge, for some inexplicable reason, was persuaded by the Claimant’s skewed interpretation of the law and ordered the question was not put to the expert on the grounds that as the problem was deemed to have been present at the time of sale, actual evidence as to the condition of the car at the time of sale was “irrelevant”.

Back to court again then, to set this aside as the court had erred in law. At the set aside hearing, the Claimant argued the expert could not “travel back in time” and give an opinion on the condition at the point of sale, which rather brings into question the point of any expert in any legal matter.

The court held the previous judge appeared to have overlooked S19(15 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the issue of the condition of the vehicle at the point of sale needs to be asked and needs to be answered.

ECSC Group plcMore Secure

On average 55 vulnerabilities are identified daily.

What can I do?

Review your organisations priorities and ask ‘can we afford a breach?’. What do I do during an incident? Who do I involve? When do I involve the ICO?

If you’re unable to answers these questions, you need help from the experts.

Polly DaviesLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Don’t Get Soaked: The Habitation Checks That Stop Motorhome Rejections

Buyers are rejecting motorhomes for damp, leaks and unsafe cabins. Here’s what to inspect in the habitation area and why a simple pre-sale check can save you a costly Consumer Rights Act dispute.

Can You Claim What You Haven’t Lost? The ‘No Loss’ Principle Meets s19 CRA 2015

A live claim against a member raises a sharp question: if no money has changed hands and only deductions are in dispute, has the claimant suffered a recoverable loss?

To Repair or Not to Repair: that is the question

A customer drops off a car three months after purchase and asks for a refund. You might have a right to repair, but touch a spanner without clear permission and you could turn a winnable case into an unwanted rejection.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015: Bête noire or useful tool?

Section 19(14) isn’t a magic wand for consumers, and Sections 23 and 24 give traders real leverage. Here’s how to use repairs, disproportionality and usage deductions to keep disputes under control.

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.

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.