Author: Nicola Porter
Published: June 23, 2015
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 7 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.
We often hear of consumers taking their newly purchased vehicles to Halfords for one of their comprehensive safety checks, or a premium service.
Then returning the car to our clients with a ‘wish list’ of things they want replacing or repairing, regardless of whether they were wear and tear items or not, the list often being based on advice from Halfords.
However, Halfords have themselves recently fallen victim to a Trading Standards sting, where a vehicle was anonymously booked in for a Premium Service, for the sum of £235.00. The vehicle was returned to the “customer” with 11 defects having not been rectified. These were simple defects, which could and should have been easily highlighted by the technician in question.
Halfords were subsequently prosecuted, having pleaded guilty to 8 offences and ordered to pay a hefty £32,000 fine, plus a £120 victim surcharge per vehicle. This problem arose from one of their sites in the Bristol area, while Halfords claim it to be an isolated incident and not a reflection of their standard of work in stores nationwide.
Nevertheless, it raises a question about who one might regard as a reliable expert. Even the “top” traders can be questioned! And should be!
