The court finds car dealer partly liable for damage caused by the removal of a sticker!


Due to COVID-19, the court held an Early Neutral Evaluation, a 30-minute telephone assessment of each party’s position.

Author: Jason Williams
Reading time: 3 minutes

This article is 3 weeks 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.

Mr P sees a prestige car that he likes the look of. It is an expensive new car. Mr P makes a down payment and then obtains the car on finance.

The odd minor niggle is fixed by our client. And then the telephone call…

The call from Mr P that he has just taken the dealer’s sticker off the back windscreen and the heated elements came off with it causing significant damage to both the windscreen and the roof canvas. Our client denied responsibility for the cost of repair (thousands) consequent of Mr P’s heavy-handedness.

Additionally, our dealer client denied liability on the basis that they did not actually sell the car to Mr P. They had sold it to the finance company who were, in turn, separately supplying it to Mr P under a hire purchase agreement or similar.

Court proceedings were issued – against our dealer only – whereupon Mr P provided a witness statement from a garage that very much suggested they had removed the sticker and not him. Mr P relied on the Bentley handbook (page 365!) that recommended stickers ought not to be placed on the inside of heated rear windscreens.

HR Manager

So simple even a child could use it

HR Manager is designed to assist employers manage their legal obligations in relation to Employment Law, Human Resources, Health & Safety and Data Protection. Fully utilising HR Manager will demonstrate best practice, assist in the meeting of legal obligations and show due diligence.

Due to COVID-19, the court held an Early Neutral Evaluation, a 30-minute telephone assessment of each party’s position. Unlike small claims mediation, the Early Neutral Evaluations were overseen by a County Court judge. Although the judge was unable to give Mr P legal advice, he was urged in the strongest terms possible to seek such advice on whether it was wise to pursue our client alone and not the finance company for the contractual reason aforementioned. Mr P did not change tack.

Some three years after the event, the case is finally heard in court. Only this judge does not accept the “lack of contract” argument – on the basis that the dealer had accepted responsibility for the minor niggle – the front seatbelts had been put in the wrong way around by the manufacturer. 

Although never specifically pleaded by Mr P, the judge seemingly felt that the dealer owed a duty of care to the end user by placing the sticker over the heated rear window, contrary to the manufacturer’s recommendation not to.

In summary, the court found that Mr P was 70% responsible for the damage caused by removing the sticker, and our client was 30% liable for putting it there in the first place.

Clients are thus advised to be mindful of where they place their advertising stickers.

Jason Williams

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.