There was a favourable outcome for our member in a recent case where the Claimant was awarded only £100.00 of his £2500 claim.
At the point of purchase, the Claimant was aware of a chip in the windscreen, which was an advisory on the MOT. After purchase, the Claimant was advised of an oil leak via third- party diagnosis and eventually issued proceedings against our client for £2500 of repair costs.
In cross-examination, the Claimant conceded he knew about the chip in the windscreen prior to entering the contract, as the Defendant, our member, had made him aware of it. He also conceded that he refused to let the Defendant inspect and repair the oil leak, reasoning that the trip was too far and that the Defendant had refused to replace the windscreen at the same time.
The judge determined that under s14 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Claimant cannot claim subsequently for a defect that was drawn to his attention or that he knew about, or was reasonably or obviously observable. As it was a defect he knew about, he cannot now claim it renders the vehicle not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.
In respect of the oil leak, the judge considered the burden of proof to be upon the Defendant, however, the Claimant confirmed he had turned down an offer by the Defendant to repair the oil leak. The judge determined that as he refused to take it back for repair, the Claimant had removed his remedy under the Consumer Rights Act. The Claimant was awarded the cost of an inspection
Need help with keeping on track with FCA Regulation and Compliance? Partner with Automotive Compliance
