Misrepresentation? Not without an untrue statement


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

Author: Howard Tilney
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 2 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.

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.

Howard Tilney

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.