SHOCK & HORROR! A finance company seeks to influence an expert opinion!

legal updates

Any finance house thinking of or seeking to emulate such unconscionable conduct, risks not only judicial ire and sanction but also being named and shamed.

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.

While this is not entirely news to us here at Lawgistics and our sister Litigation CIC, even we were stunned to recently read a report disclosed by a finance company, which had been procured from one of the three main national providers of expert motor engineering evidence purportedly pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 35, in which it had brazenly directed the expert engineer in the following terms:

We need the inspection to prove that this vehicle was not fit for purpose when bought and fraudulent MOT was provided to hide this” and “…need proof that we did not cause this extent of corrosion within the time period we have owned it – 13 months.

Paragraph 2.1 of The Practice Direction to CPR Part 35 states that: “Expert evidence should be the independent product of the expert uninfluenced by the pressures of litigationread[DE1]  finance, and paragraph 2.2 goes on to state: “Experts should assist the Court by providing objective unbiased opinion on matters within their expertise and should not assume the role of an advocate” or for that matter, a “hired gun” for finance, which was clearly the intent of the finance company noted above.

Since this is an ongoing court case, the name of the finance company responsible for such affront and flagrant abuse of the rules of court and evidence, will be withheld… for now. However, be on notice, that any finance house thinking of or seeking to emulate such unconscionable conduct, risks not only judicial ire and sanction but also being named and shamed by us, and for that matter, the same goes for any expert engineer witless enough to be adversely influenced by such self-serving instructions.

Cable For My CarWe offer free next day delivery* on all EV charging cables when shipped within mainland UK

Stocking only premium EV charging cables, we ensure you experience a stress-free EV charge, over and over, confidently backed by our 2 year warranty. Our premium & reliable charging cables are compliant with EU & UK safety standards. We offer free next day delivery* on all EV charging cables when shipped within mainland UK.

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Proving the ‘chain of custody’ can be a challenge

Conflicting interests on a used car can turn a simple purchase into a legal minefield. Here’s how to evidence the chain, challenge a finance claim, and spot the red flags before you hand over the cash.

Motor Finance Commissions: Supreme Court Slashes £44 Billion Payout, but Are Dealers Really Off the Hook?

The Supreme Court’s August ruling wiped most of the eye-watering £44 billion redress bill off the table, yet thousands of drivers could still pocket compensation when the FCA unveils its new scheme next year. Here’s what the decision really means for lenders, dealers and consumers.

Broker Falls Flat: Court Dismisses Flimsy Claim Against Dealer

A County Court ruling has reinforced the importance of solid evidence and clear contracts, rejecting a broker’s claim against a car dealer over an alleged pre-existing fault.

Undisclosed Motor Finance Commissions: Are We Finally Nearing the End?

After years of speculation, the FCA signals a possible redress scheme for motor finance commissions—just as the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in.

Small Claims and Expert Fees: Understanding the £750 Cap

Parties should carefully consider the necessity and proportionality of obtaining expert evidence to avoid incurring irrecoverable costs.

Buyer Beware: £4K Discovery claim falls flat in court

An opportunistic claim for nearly £9,000 on a £4,000 used vehicle was thrown out by the court, reinforcing the principle of caveat emptor in business-to-business sales.

Two Years of Lawgistics Litigation Support

Since launching Lawgistics Litigation for the Motor Trade, we’ve saved our members over £2.6 million in court claims.

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.