Author: Howard Tilney
Published: October 28, 2016
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 5 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 were the words of the Judge after he had heard enough from a consumer’s partner at a recent hearing of our clients claim for the cost of an unpaid invoice for works carried out to diagnose and repair issues with a BMW presented with an engine fault.
The Consumer refused to pay our clients invoice arguing that it had singularly failed to diagnose the fault properly or at all, carried out unnecessary remedial works and incurred excessive costs.
In response, our client maintained that it had followed the correct BMW protocol, which involved, inter alia, an element of ‘trial and error’.
Our client adduced independent evidence that the prevailing BMW repair protocol had been adhered to and argued that any competent technician would have done likewise.
The fact that the Consumer subsequently took the Vehicle elsewhere, which in turn successfully diagnosed and remedied an ECU fault, was immaterial, since the alternative garage had benefited in no small part from the problem solving process carried out previously by our client.
The Judge accepted that our client had proved its case on the balance of probability and judgment was awarded against the Consumer for the full amount claimed plus courts fees.
