Author: Polly Davies
Published: February 20, 2023
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 2 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.
Just before a court hearing last month, the Claimant turned down the generous settlement offered by our member. The Claimant countered with a request for more than double the amount that our member had offered. Our member took their chances, and it was the right decision. The claim against them was dismissed.
Although a fault with the vehicle had rendered it unsatisfactory, the circumstances meant our member was entitled to the opportunity to repair it. The judge considered the repair to have been performed within a reasonable time, which was 19 days. The Claimant had unilaterally imposed a tight time limit in which the repair was to be completed that our member did not agree and to which our member was not bound.
The Claimant issued proceedings in the full knowledge the car was repaired and ready to collect. It remained at our member’s premises until the day of the hearing, albeit with a flat battery. The Claimant agreed to make the necessary collection arrangements and, no doubt regretted not accepting the original settlement figure they were offered before walking into court that day.
