The customer isn’t always right…

legal updates

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.

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.

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

Octane FinanceFuel Your Finance

Octane Finance is the broker of choice for new and used car dealers nationwide. With our uncompromising service levels and our genuine and professional approach, you and your customers can trust us to deliver.

Polly DaviesLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Coincidence or Cause? When Timing Leads to Claims

A motorcycle engine seized just 30 miles after a service, sparking a claim of negligence. Find out how this case unfolded in court and why coincidence doesn’t always mean liability.

Elusive Vehicle Noises: What to Do When You Can’t Find the Fault

More customers are reporting strange noises that seem impossible to trace. Learn practical steps to recreate, record, and address these elusive issues while protecting your business.

The power of expert evidence in vehicle disputes

Our member never claimed the 5-year-old, multi-owner car was perfect.

Section 23 – Consumers Rights Act 2015 (CRA2015)

The judge determined our member was liable for the repair, despite the clear MOT and trouble-free driving over three months.

Burden of proof? Get your evidence while you can!

The burden of proof reverses for issues raised between 30 days and six months of ownership.

On your Marks… Get Set… Doh!

The TSO told our member that the consumer ought not to have experienced a failure given the age and mileage of the car.

Indemnities – Handle with Care!

Indemnity clauses are usually onerous by design and drafted in broad terms so dealers should not make the mistake of overlooking them.

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.