Unauthorised Repairs

legal updates

The CRA is not a carte blanche for customers to spend what they want.

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 are regularly asked about claims for repairs that were not authorised by our members. The terms and conditions are clear, their customers must get authorisation, and at times, they do not.

Can the claim be rejected or not?

The answer, as is often the case, is: “it depends”.

If this is a repair that would be the trader’s responsibility under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), then the trader will be responsible, and it is simply a question of how much for?

If the customer takes their 8-year-old Peugeot to a main dealer and spends £2,000 on repairs when quite obviously the car did not warrant a main dealer repair, then the customer should only receive back the amount it would have cost the trader to repair at a local independent garage.

The CRA is not a carte blanche for customers to spend what they want.

However, say a customer is on their way to go on holiday, or to a wedding, or they have children who need taking to karate, drama, and dance during the week, etc. and they break down at the side of the road at 6.00 pm, and the mechanic turns up and says it can be repaired that night but for a hefty sum.

The customer agrees to the repair and they are on their way within a few hours. Although they have paid over the odds, the alternative was staying in a hotel, missing a wedding or holiday, or having to hire a vehicle to simply fulfil their family commitments. There may also be the need to transport the vehicle back to the trader.

These costs could all be recoverable as consequential losses, which are losses that arise as a consequence of somebody else, and in this case, a vehicle sold with a fault. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, the decision to undertake expensive repairs may well be seen by the court as the best option to have taken, as the alternative was either still more expensive, or it penalised the customer by missing the wedding, holiday, etc.

So, sometimes we need to look at the bigger picture. Did the customer take the reasonable route? And, that is what Lawgistics are here for, to sift the facts and advise accordingly.

HowdenCompetitive, comprehensive, quick

One of the largest independent specialist motor trade brokers in the UK. Our extensive history of supplying insurance to the motor trade means we understand your business needs. By partnering with a specialist insurance broker like us, you get exactly what you need to protect your business.

Darren FletcherLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

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.

The customer isn’t always right…

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.

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.

Always prep, check, then check again

If you state that every vehicle comes with a new MOT, then ensure that they do!

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.