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!

HaswentWebsites for dealers small and large

Composer is a next-gen automotive platform that has been designed from the ground up to give you an intuitive way to promote your stock. You have extensive stock management options, and you'll gain a brilliantly responsive new website to advertise your stock, starting at just £39.99/month.

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.

Court Rules Against ‘Serial Returner’ in Distance Selling Dispute

It is clear from his evidence that his true intention was that he wanted the ability to reject the car at a time of his choosing.

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.