Failed Claimant was “Clutch”ing at Straws

legal updates

Our client had the burden of proof to show that it was not defective at the point of sale.

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 below article details a court victory for the motor trade, and a Claimant left significantly out of pocket.

In a nutshell, an 11-year-old car was sold with 109,000 miles on the clock. After two months, the Claimant alleged there was clutch slippage and it needed to be replaced along with the flywheel. A repair bill of over £1000 was incurred, and the Claimant asked the court to make the Defendant (our client) pay for it.

The Defendant’s position was they had previously provided some free repairs to the car for other matters post sale, which showed them to be reasonable traders. They rejected the clutch complaint on the basis that when they undertook the other repairs, they had driven the car and found no problem with the clutch or with changing gears. It was also two months later when the Claimant first mentioned the clutch issue. Remember, our client had the burden of proof to show that it was not defective at the point of sale because the alleged fault had shown itself after the first 30 days but within six months.

The court was asked to consider a document from the Claimant’s repairing garage that referred to “slipping clutch, to replace with flywheel” or words to that effect. The court advocate for our client persuaded the judge this was not a finding by the garage, but simply a note detailing what the Claimant was experiencing, and what the garage had to do for her.

The judge wanted an explanation as to why our client felt that even if there was clutch slippage now, two months after purchase, was this wear and tear and not a defect. Our client talked it through and again the judge seemed to be positively influenced by their account.

The judge went away to contemplate and when she returned stated that although there was a presumption the clutch was a defect at the point of sale, it was not a presumption that was absolute, and on the balance of probabilities, she ruled our client was not liable at all. 

The Claimant had to cover all her court fees and pay our client’s £30 travel expenses. She had previously declined a £500 Without Prejudice offer to settle.

My view is this was the correct decision in the circumstances. Regrettably, we see too many instances where clients lose in court because the judge concludes the seller is automatically liable for anything that goes wrong in the first six months of purchase. I do think it was to our client’s benefit that they quickly fixed the issues they accepted were there at the point of sale. Even so, we want our clients to have this judge all of the time!

HaswentWebsites for dealers small and large

Composer is a next-gen automotive platform that has been designed from the ground up to give you an intuitive way to promote your stock. You have extensive stock management options, and you'll gain a brilliantly responsive new website to advertise your stock, starting at just £39.99/month.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Importance of taking your customers’ details!

Garages aren’t legally required to take a customer’s address before repair or sale, but skipping it can stall Torts notices and court action when vehicles are abandoned or not collected.

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.

Mediation appointments: the court’s take on ‘delays’

You can tell the court you’re unavailable, but will that stop a telephone mediation being listed? In our client’s case it didn’t, and the refusal to move it now means a full hearing next year.

Witness Statements: Own the Weakness and Turn Up to Court

Courts are scrutinising credibility more than ever. A Witness Statement that ducks its weak points or a witness who fails to attend risks serious damage to their case

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.