Fleet trade seller misrepresented vehicle as never being a ‘total loss’.


Upon taking delivery of the vehicle the buyer immediately discovered that the vehicle had a catalogue of serious faults.

Author: Howard Tilney
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 6 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.

So the Watford County Court recently found in favour of our client, a trade buyer, who had relied on a declaration made by the trade seller that the vehicle had never been a ‘total loss’, before making a successful bid on it at auction.

Upon taking delivery of the vehicle the buyer immediately discovered that the vehicle had a catalogue of serious faults, which rendered the vehicle unroadworthy and pointed to heavy accident damage.

An independent consultant motor engineer’s report concluded that the vehicle was not only unroadworthy but a total loss.

It transpired that the vehicle had previously been registered to a national rental company, where it had been involved in an accident, but since the company self-insured it did not register the accident damage with HPI as a total loss. This appeared to be the seller’s principal argument!

Regardless, the accident damage had been deliberately hidden from superficial view. However, upon closer inspection the state of the vehicle was obvious and would have been so to any casual observer and certainly a competent and honest trader.

To compound matters, in breach of the Courts directions, the Defendant failed to file a witness statement or adduce any evidence in support of its defence for which its representative received a dressing down from the Judge.

Unsurprisingly, the trade seller was found to be in breach of contract and was ordered to make a full refund plus costs to our client.

Another famous victory for common sense, justice and Lawgistics!

Howard Tilney

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.