Judge and Jury: The Case of the Chipped Windscreen

legal updates

The customer had viewed the vehicle and taken it for a test drive prior to purchase but claims they had not seen the chip in the windscreen.

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 customer purchased a vehicle after spending an hour looking round the car and taking it for a test drive. The next day, the customer rang to say there is a chip in the windscreen and claimed that Autoglass had said the chip was old, likely to spread and that a replacement windscreen was the only option, costing £150.

The customer demanded that it is replaced and wanted compensation for the inconvenience. She also reminded staff at the garage that she could reject the vehicle as Trading Standards (Consumer Direct) say she is entitled to do. What happens now?

The customer had viewed the vehicle prior to purchase and if the chip in the windscreen was an old one, and that is not necessarily accepted, then the customer is not entitled to reject the vehicle for a fault that should have been seen on the inspection.

The customer is not entitled to reject the vehicle. She is not entitled to compensation. The seller does not have to replace the screen unless it makes the vehicle unroadworthy.

The important question here is, why did Trading Standards give different advice? Unfortunately, the advice received would have been given based on the information the customer provided. If she had given information about the situation as she saw it and the information did not reflect the true legal position, then any advice given would be misleading.

The old adage, ‘incorrect information put in gives incorrect information out’ applies.

DMS NavigatorDealer Management System software for Car Sales, Aftersales and eCommerce

Our dealers use us to help them be more Efficient and Profitable!

You can use our Dealer and Lead Management software to integrate all dealership departments, both online and physical ; providing all in-house functions; Invoicing, Stock Management, Accounting and Marketing as well as interfacing for advertising, ecommerce and more.

Dennis ChapmanIn remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015Read More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Do NOT try to take away a consumer’s rights on an invoice

A Welsh Trading Standards department prosecuted a car dealer for “Furnishing a used car invoice to a consumer giving the impression that the consumer had less rights than they actually did.”

Misleading adverts results in £58,000 fine

The result should serve as a warning to all traders to ensure vehicles are accurately described.

Failure to deliver goods – Business to Business (B2B) sales

In these circumstances, our client as the buyer, will be covered under Sections 27-29 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (“SOGA”).

What’s that pain between your shoulders? It’s the Trading Standards’ knife in your back!

Trading Standards are meant to provide help and suggestions to ensure future compliance.

Customer ordered to pay our client’s court costs in mileage dispute

A mileage disclaimer sticker was also displayed on dashboard at the time of sale, advising that the mileage must be deemed incorrect unless otherwise stated in writing.

Statutory rights as a trader – B2B

Traders are offered protection under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA) and the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

Court success on vehicle with a mileage discrepancy

The Claimant issued proceedings against our member for the full cost of the vehicle and the cost of the repairs by the main dealer for misrepresentation.

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.