Misrepresentation? Not without an untrue statement

legal updates

On the evidence, there was no question that our member had complied with his obligations under the Consumer Rights Act, fully.

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 was the finding of the Judge at a recent hearing of a claim against our member motor trader for a full refund in respect of the sale of an electric car.

It was alleged by the consumer that he was not told certain things about the car that he should have been told in relation to its range, which amounted to an omission and on that basis the car had been mis-sold and he was entitled to a full refund after some 18 months plus.

It was accepted that our member had warned the consumer that the trip computer range could not be relied on and it was further accepted that no range was ever implied. 

Regardless, the consumer was of the opinion that he should have been informed of the range and so he determined to extrapolate from what he had been told that the achievable range could actually be rather more than that indicated on the trip computer! Suffice to say, he was shocked and stunned and not a bit amazed when he found that his theory did not match the performance of the car.

It was further accepted that the car was not faulty. 

On the evidence, there was no question that our member had complied with his obligations under the Consumer Rights Act, fully. Indeed, he had made a number of goodwill offers to assist the consumer but these were roundly rejected. 

In her judgment, the Judge praised our member for having “gone above and beyond” his obligations.

Conversely, the consumer was criticised for bombarding the Judge with more than 50 emails during the weekend before the hearing, which was but part of what Lawgistics and our member had been subjected to over the months. 

No fault, no misleading statement and no claim, so were the findings of the Judge. Claim dismissed.  

Another victory for common sense, the Rule of Law and the motor trade against unrealistic off beam consumer expectations.

Octane FinanceFuel Your Finance

Octane Finance is the broker of choice for new and used car dealers nationwide. With our uncompromising service levels and our genuine and professional approach, you and your customers can trust us to deliver.

Related Legal Updates

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…

Importance of taking your customers’ details!

Garages aren’t legally required to take a customer’s address before repair or sale, but skipping it can stall Torts notices and court action when vehicles are abandoned or not collected.

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.

Can You Claim What You Haven’t Lost? The ‘No Loss’ Principle Meets s19 CRA 2015

A live claim against a member raises a sharp question: if no money has changed hands and only deductions are in dispute, has the claimant suffered a recoverable loss?

To Repair or Not to Repair: that is the question

A customer drops off a car three months after purchase and asks for a refund. You might have a right to repair, but touch a spanner without clear permission and you could turn a winnable case into an unwanted rejection.

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.