The importance of retaining evidence

legal updates

A Court is entitled to find “on the balance of probability”

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.

Some time ago we were asked to advise about a problem that had occurred when a car, driven by the firm’s own mechanic on test, had crashed, badly injuring the mechanic and other innocent motorists.

The road became blocked and the police were called as well as the emergency services.

The mechanic had no memory of the accident so was unable to shed light on the possible cause. As this happened in the days before forensic services were cut in the interests of cost saving for all but fatal mishaps, it had been possible to obtain a copy of a police report that gave several clues about the behaviour of the car in the immediate moments leading up to the disaster.

Of particular concern were marks recorded on the road surface at the scene and prior to the scene. In this particular case the matter was so serious that a specialised examination of these marks was warranted and a visit was made to the road in question.

After careful measurement of the remaining road marks (this took place several weeks later) and close examination of the wreck stored in a local garage, we were able to conclude that the most likely cause of loss of control was a rear tyre deflation. However we needed to know why it deflated and when. These answers were relevant to the question of the drivers competence, his input and that of the workshop who had serviced the car.

To take the investigation further, we had to examine the deflated tyre. It was with dismay therefore, that we learned that the potentially offending tyre had been thrown away. This mistake deprived us of the chance to see if the sidewall had collapsed or the tread had been punctured and by what. It might have revealed that the deflation was sudden and complete, a true “Blow-Out”, which would have provided a certain defence to any suggestion that the workshop or mechanic had damaged the tyre beforehand. Without the tyre it was not possible to convince a Court that the deflated tyre did not deflate as a consequence of the accident but was a probable cause of it.

Since in civil liability, a Court is entitled to find “on the balance of probability”, it was open to the Court in the absence of any convincing argument otherwise, to conclude that the driver had caused the accident and the deflation.

This outcome was in our view not merely unjust, but it affected both servicing garage (who’s insurance premiums soared) and the injured mechanic, who thereafter was viewed as a liability. It all could have turned out differently had the evidence been retained.

The lesson here is that ALL material should be retained, whether you are facing a major investigation or just a simple customer complaint about needless replacement of spark plugs. We recommend that ALL parts changed during a service should, were practical to do so, be placed in an oilproof bag or box and placed in the boot for the customer to see and dispose of as they choose. Taking a single digital photograph of it in the boot will also eliminate entirely any argument.

Impression Communications LtdPutting the motive in automotive

Impression works with businesses across the automotive aftermarket supply chain such as parts suppliers, warehouse distributors, motor factors and independent garages. Covering all aspects of automotive aftermarket marketing, including social media, event management, customer newsletters and PR, Impression is able to quickly establish itself within a client’s business and work towards their objectives.

Philip StricklandLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

An eventful small claims hearing

Discover how a simple oversight in witness representation and off-screen coaching at a remote hearing can dramatically impact legal outcomes, underscoring the critical need for adherence to procedural rules and proper pre-action conduct in our latest insightful article.

From initial complaint to court claim form – let us help you

You can feel assured that court deadlines are attended to with the required attention and specialism.

Is it time to ditch “Dear Sirs”?

Clearly, “Dear Sirs” is old-fashioned, but is it sexist?

Location, Location, Mislocation: A costly oversight in court attendance

What the unfortunate Claimants (husband and wife) had not appreciated, was that the hearing was listed for the court at Central London.

Court re-instates a claim because of its own error!

One wonders how many times the courts have made the same error.

To Be or Not To Be Remains the Legal Question

The Claimant had sought to reject a commercial van that he had been using for business purposes but alleged that he was a consumer.

Always Deal with Court Documents

This cost our member an application fee to the court, plus a legal representative at court for the hearing.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

01480 455500

Vinpenta House
High Causeway

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.