Author: Howard Tilney
Published: August 3, 2023
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 1 year 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.
So was the judge’s comment at a recent hearing where our member faced a claim for damages of more than £7,000 for the required repairs of a nine-year-old vehicle with 68,000 miles.
The issue before the court was whether the vehicle was of satisfactory quality under s.9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, taking into account its price, age, and condition at the time of sale/delivery.
The judge considered that there would more than likely be issues with a vehicle of that age, hence his comment above, (nicely doubling as my article’s title).
Importantly, the vehicle had been sold with a warranty, which was live when the faults were detected some months post sale/delivery, but the consumer chose to ignore this, incurred third party repair costs, and then presented our member with the bill because they wrongly thought they had the right to do what they wanted.
While the judge was not without criticism for our member, since they had failed to respond properly to the initial complaint, he observed that the consumer had to follow the law, and based on the facts, the judge was not satisfied that there had been any breach and further or in the alternative, the consumer had failed to mitigate his loss. Claim dismissed.
