Does Lawgistics have the longest-running car dispute ever?

legal updates

Keep tuned in, and maybe before the year 2031, we will be able to tell you how the court determined the matter.

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.

Some cases that we get given can be attended to in a matter of hours or days,  but not always. So, I am wondering if we currently have the longest-running car dispute known to mankind? Probably not, but here is the case in numbers (if memory serves me right!):

  • 7 years since the new car was purchased
  • 6 years since the alleged problem materialised (and Lawgistics got involved)
  • 5 years of delay before court proceedings were issued by the consumer
  • 4 years of MOT passes – in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023
  • 3 adjourned court hearings
  • 2 actual court hearings – with at least one more to follow
  • 1 ton of paper used and still, no partridge spotted in a pear tree!

Whilst settlement by negotiation is often the best way forward, sometimes a customer’s behaviour is so unreasonable, so excessive, and misguided, that “digging in” is the only way to deal with it. Keep tuned in, and maybe before the year 2031, we will be able to tell you how the court determined the matter assuming the parties and this writer are still alive by the time the dispute is finally concluded. What it does show though, is that Lawgistics are “in the trenches” with our clients when they are absolutely needed to be there.

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.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Deposit and Fair Contractual Terms

Explore the intricacies of contract commitments and the bounds of consumer rights in our latest analysis, where a £3000 deposit dispute underscores the significance of clear terms and buyer responsibilities.

An eventful small claims hearing

Discover how a simple oversight in witness representation and off-screen coaching at a remote hearing can dramatically impact legal outcomes, underscoring the critical need for adherence to procedural rules and proper pre-action conduct in our latest insightful article.

From initial complaint to court claim form – let us help you

You can feel assured that court deadlines are attended to with the required attention and specialism.

Is it time to ditch “Dear Sirs”?

Clearly, “Dear Sirs” is old-fashioned, but is it sexist?

Location, Location, Mislocation: A costly oversight in court attendance

What the unfortunate Claimants (husband and wife) had not appreciated, was that the hearing was listed for the court at Central London.

Court re-instates a claim because of its own error!

One wonders how many times the courts have made the same error.

Maintaining professionalism in customer disputes

Your emails may be presented to a judge for review to help decide on how you have handled the matter before the court’s involvement.

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.