Judge rips into consumer, again!

legal updates

The consumer wanted to have his cake and eat it.

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.

Last week we had a case before the Court, which had previously been adjourned part heard.

On the first showing the Judge gave the consumer a dressing down for bringing the case to Court, since the vehicle should have been returned to the dealer straight away.

Indeed, the dealer had offered to accept its return and provide a refund from the outset but the consumer wanted to have his cake and eat it and made a series of unreasonable demands for recompense, which the dealer rightly refused.

The Judge was having none of it, but unfortunately the proceedings were halted prematurely due to a power cut in the Court.

The case was then adjourned to be heard afresh by another Judge, but the consumer fared no better on the second time of asking.

Again, the Judge ripped into the consumer on the same grounds as the previous Judge. He was particularly scathing about the consumers failure to return the vehicle at the appropriate time and ensure that it was properly insured and taxed, amongst other things.

Predictably, on the facts, it was ordered that the vehicle be returned to the dealer for a full refund plus service and repair costs, as previously offered, but the consumers claim for the cost of an inspection report, transportation costs and critically the Court fees were declined.

Ordinarily, costs follow the event, so the Courts refusal to award costs in this case was a clear indication that it disapproved of the consumers conduct. The consumers mauling by the judiciary was a welcome bonus!

Connected Car FinanceReady to take the connected approach?

We’re here to ensure all used car dealerships deliver a better car finance experience for their customers. With over 4,000 approved dealer partners we ensure you are properly supported and connected with a range of flexible finance options, allowing you to lend and your customers to buy in complete confidence.

Related Legal Updates

“Running Well”: Two words that cost a consumer £3,300

The judge found our member’s repairs were sound and ruled the email undercut the later allegations, dismissing the claim and awarding expenses.

The photo you didn’t take could cost you thousands

Proving a vehicle’s condition at handover is the difference between recovering costs and footing the bill.

They Broke It, You Don’t Pay: Intervening Acts that defend dealer claims

When damage stems from what a customer did after purchase, you may not be on the hook.

To strike or not to strike

Courts are reluctant to strike out a claim or defence, even where there are procedural breaches. Here’s when CPR 3.4(2) genuinely applies, why summary judgment under Part 24 may be a better route, and what judges look for before taking the drastic step.

Is the legislative framework outdated or misunderstood?

A claimant mixed pre-2015 laws with a post-2015 car purchase and the result was, frankly, embarrassing.

Come On, Baby, Light My Fire

If a car goes up in smoke, does the buyer’s insurance mean the trader escapes liability? Here’s how insurer involvement really works…

Don’t Get Soaked: The Habitation Checks That Stop Motorhome Rejections

Buyers are rejecting motorhomes for damp, leaks and unsafe cabins. Here’s what to inspect in the habitation area and why a simple pre-sale check can save you a costly Consumer Rights Act dispute.

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.