What ever next – dashcam woes

The customer purchased a vehicle and had a dashcam fitted by the trader at his request.  The customer was provided with the relevant user manual and went on their way.

Three and half years later the car was hit and damaged whilst parked.  The customer was unable to retrieve a recording of the incident, allegedly because the dashcam only stored two hours’ worth of data, and this reduced the amount he could claim on insurance. 

The customer returned to the trader and claimed the dashcam was not fit for purpose and had he known it only stored two hours of data at the point he purchased it, three and half years earlier, would have opted for a device which stored more data and would have paid more for it.

The customer did not make it clear at the point of purchase he required a dashcam specifically to record his vehicle being hit whilst parked when he was not present, and that given the likely lapse of time between such an event and his discovery of the damage, it was imperative the dashcam recorded for a particular length of time.  Of course no evidence has been proffered in support of the argument an eighteen hour recording would have produced a different outcome and we do not accept it would have. 

The customer made no specific enquiries whatsoever and was provided with a user manual, which he ought to have read.  There is also the internet, where dash cam articles and chit chat abound. 

Imagine arguing three years after purchase your I-phone is not fit for purpose and was mis-sold because you’ve run out of storage and you believed, because you didn’t know otherwise that storage was infinite.  In this day and age this is naïve at best. 

The argument that our client ought to have given chapter and verse on the dashcam functionality at the point of sale beggars belief.  The customer had more than three years to show an interest.  What next?  Ought our members to be offering driving lessons with the cars they sell too?