Trading Standards lose out by over £1600 by going to court

legal_updates

Rather than simply giving advice, the high-handed officers decided they would need to launch a full investigation.

Author: Jason Williams
Published:
Reading time: 3 minutes

This article is 4 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.

To protect the identity of our client we cannot go into too much detail.

In a nutshell, one Trading Standards Department identified a very minor issue with one of our clients and the manner they advertised and then sold one car.  Rather than simply giving advice, the high-handed officers decided they would need to launch a full investigation.  After months of doing very little they finally and very kindly offered our client a caution.  Our client agreed to this on the understanding that it came with no publicity.  At that point the offer of a caution was immediately withdrawn and followed by a “see you in court” – even though the council were silent on whether they would have gone public with the caution had it been signed.

The Council issued proceedings in the Magistrates Court but with many basic errors.  Errors that we were very keen to point out.  We hoped that this would encourage them to revert to offering the caution and keep our client out of court.  But they dug in even further.

On the morning of the hearing we were advised that the council would be seeking their legal costs of £1350 and – for the first time mentioned – a claim for over £600 in compensation for the “victim” -who had long had his money refunded.

Still keen to stay out of court our client asked us to offer to the council that they pay ALL of their legal costs and to pay ALL that the customer was seeking even though we felt that the request for compensation was ludicrous. Our client offered all of this in exchange for the council re-issuing a caution.  But again, the council’s legal officer declined – insisting that “no-one imposes conditions on what we offer”.

In court, the Magistrates heard our client plead guilty and having memorised much of what we told him to say, our client proceeded to detail how the council had behaved towards him.

After deliberation, the court awarded nothing more than a 12-month conditional discharge but not even a fine.  They ordered our client to pay just £300 of the Council’s £1350 legal costs that they sought, to pay a £30 victim surcharge but not have to give a single penny to the so called “victim”.

The decision by the council not to accept our client’s out of court settlement cost their taxpayers over £1000 in the failed recovery of legal costs and it also cost their consumer over £600.  It was offered to them on a plate but the council decided to “twist” rather than “stick”.  And instead of coming up “trumps” the council were left looking like the “jokers” in the pack.

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.