Fast Track Claim Dismissed

legal updates

The court commented that as a matter of common sense when purchasing a used item, a buyer has to accept the item is not going to be in the pristine state it would be in if purchased brand-new.

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.

A Lawgistics member recently successfully defended a fast track court claim worth over £21,000 and was awarded over £2,000 in costs.

The claim related to a second-hand vehicle that our member sold to a consumer back in 2021.

Over seven months and some 12,000 miles after the sale, the consumer informed our member the vehicle had broken down due to an engine and turbo failure.

As a result of this failure, the consumer sought to reject the vehicle and receive a full refund of the purchase price, in addition to recovery and diagnostic costs.

From the outset, the consumer was informed that since the fault arose over six months after the sale, it was the consumer’s responsibility to prove on the balance of probabilities that the fault was present at the time of the sale.

The consumer sought to rely on an independent report however, the report was not a (CPR) Part 35 Complaint report. Despite the report not being court compliant, the consumer was granted permission to rely on the report. However, the report did little to assist the consumer’s claim.

The report concluded that the vehicle’s turbocharger failed as a result of wear and tear to the bearings. The report confirmed that the degradation of the bearings would have been ongoing at the time of sale however, it did not state that the turbocharger itself was defective at the time of sale and was at risk of imminent failure.

Our member put forward evidence to show that the vehicle was fault free, of satisfactory quality, and fit for purpose at the time of sale. Specifically, our member demonstrated they had exercised due diligence when preparing the vehicle for sale by carrying out a visual health check, MOT, and an oil and filter service. Our member further relied on the consumer’s report to show that the fault arose as a result of wear and tear, which was to be expected on a second-hand vehicle.

The court accepted our member’s submissions and commented that as a matter of common sense when purchasing a used item, a buyer has to accept the item is not going to be in the pristine state it would be in if purchased brand-new.

Frustrated with the direction the judgment was heading, the consumer attempted to storm out of court before the judge was able to give their judgment and award costs.


Need help with keeping on track with FCA Regulation and Compliance? Partner with Automotive Compliance

After waiting approximately 10 months for this claim to reach a final hearing, our member was relieved to finally have the claim dismissed and awarded over £2,000 in costs.

Katie PlemonsSolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

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.

To Be or Not To Be Remains the Legal Question

The Claimant had sought to reject a commercial van that he had been using for business purposes but alleged that he was a consumer.

Always Deal with Court Documents

This cost our member an application fee to the court, plus a legal representative at court for the hearing.

Assist your consumer… before it’s too late

If a consumer is ignored or refused assistance by you, and a repair is carried out, you will no longer be able to inspect the failed component.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

01480 455500

Vinpenta House
High Causeway

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.