Author: Jason Williams
Published: March 10, 2019
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 3 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.
We recently had a case that was referred for determination by the Motor Ombudsman. We had their decision. A completely shoddy determination based on a woeful lack of knowledge of basic consumer and trading standards law. They found largely in favour of the consumer.
The author went to great lengths to point out to the Motor Ombudsman all of their errors of fact and of law and the perversity of their ludicrous conclusion. In fairness, they took on board what we had to say and completely changed their minds – finding now entirely in favour of our client.
The aggrieved consumer took the case to court. He relied on the first decision of the Motor Ombudsman. He also relied on his belief that because its members pay for membership, that the Ombudsman was automatically bias towards them and against consumers. This was not a submission that we agreed with.
In court, the claimant’s case was completely dismissed following the rationale we had put forward from the very outset. It could be said that by their messing up the case initially, it resulted in the Claimant wasting his time and court fees, our client having to attend court and pay for representation and our time in having to educate the Motor Ombudsman on what the law actually states and what it actually allows and what it does not. Rant over. Justice done – but only just!