Lawgistics client wins at County Court


The Claimant purchased the vehicle and reported some minor faults within 30 days after purchase.

Author: Roxanne Bradley
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 6 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 had been working on a case for some time and recently it was time for the hearing. The Claimant purchased the vehicle and reported some minor faults within 30 days after purchase.

Initially a rejection was sought, however our client offered to inspect the vehicle and remedy the faults. This was agreed by the Claimant and the car was inspected.

The majority of the minor faults were repaired and the vehicle was returned to the Claimant. One fault was left remaining however, this was with the headlights, the Client had attempted the repair, but it was unsuccessful. The vehicle had a valid MOT which had several months remaining. The Claimant had an MOT test undertaken which failed based due to the issue with the headlights and the wheel locking nuts (something which our client had already provided the Claimant). Upon this basis, the Claimant issued proceedings based upon the vehicle being of unsatisfactory quality seeking a full refund plus a further £300 more than the purchase price.

However, burden was on the Claimant to prove his case, prove the vehicle was of unsatisfactory quality taking into account the age, mileage and purchase price. The Judge agreed the Claimant had not established the vehicle as being of unsatisfactory quality at the point of sale for the purposes of ss9 and 19 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Claim was dismissed.

The vehicle itself was sold for £1,900 and had travelled over 150,000 miles at the time of sale!

Roxanne Bradley

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.