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

legal updates

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

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!

Brave AgencyDriving growth in the automotive industry

Brave is an award-winning digital agency offering a comprehensive range of services aimed at helping your business grow. From rebrands and web development to marketing campaigns that get you noticed, we do it all. Since 2000, we’ve helped businesses across the automotive sector reach new heights. Could yours be next?

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

A settlement agreement may not protect you

An agreement does not need to be in writing to be binding, but it is much easier to prove the terms of an agreement if there is a documented paper trail.

The customer isn’t always right…

As it was a defect he knew about, he cannot now claim it renders the vehicle not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.

Implications, assumptions, and confusion – why being clear on your actions could be key to winning

The diagnosis showed the third-party garage had failed to repair the vehicle to a satisfactory standard and this was relayed to the consumer.

Burden of proof? Get your evidence while you can!

The burden of proof reverses for issues raised between 30 days and six months of ownership.

On your Marks… Get Set… Doh!

The TSO told our member that the consumer ought not to have experienced a failure given the age and mileage of the car.

Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

Our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure.

Is it the end of Trading Standards enforcement as we know it?

Earlier this year, the Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers Act 2024 obtained Royal Assent.

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.