Author: Polly Davies
Published: March 10, 2019
Reading time: 1 minute
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.
A claim against one of our members was dismissed this week in the County Court as the Claimant failed to demonstrate a fault at the point of sale.
The matter involved the sale of a six-year-old Mercedes Sprinter of 128,000 miles and the Claimant instigated proceedings against our member for the cost of ‘putting it right’.
The Claimant was using the van in the course of his business carrying out ex-pat removals to Europe and was not a consumer. He turned down an offer of a refund put forward by our member as a goodwill gesture and instead sought recompense through the County Court for an unqualified amount for fixing faults he claimed the van had.
The District Judge found the claim did not ‘get out of the starting blocks’. The Claimant had purchased a second-hand van with substantial mileage and the claim was not supported by the evidence the Judge needed to make the findings the Claimant wanted him to. The claim was dismissed.
