Why did you replace that? That must prove it was faulty!

legal updates

The customer rejected the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) on the basis that it was within 30 days of purchase and the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose.

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.

Our members pride themselves on their customer service, so when a minor complaint is made, sometimes it seems best to make a small repair even if there was nothing wrong with the vehicle.

We had such a case which recently went to a small claims hearing.

The Claimant (customer) had purchased a vehicle from the Defendant (our member) in early November 2020. He had paid approximately £3,400.

The Claimant became concerned about the vehicle in the following weeks. His concern was the fluid level in the reservoir that feeds the brake and clutch was too low, suggesting there was a serious leak which meant the vehicle was unsafe.

On 30 November 2020, the customer rejected the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) on the basis that it was within 30 days of purchase and the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose.

He contacted the Defendant and while there was not an issue about whether this was potentially an effective rejection, the issue was whether or not there was a defect to render the vehicle not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose.

The vehicle was taken to another garage by our member and examined. The garage could not find anything wrong and provided a letter to that effect. However, when the Claimant had dropped the vehicle off at the garage, he had mentioned that he thought the slave cylinder was leaking. Because the Claimant was of the view there may be something wrong, the garage replaced the slave cylinder free of charge as a gesture of goodwill.

The Claimant was unhappy because he had sent the car to reject it, not for work to be done, and so Lawgistics became involved. We initially explained that as there was nothing wrong with the vehicle he could not reject it. However, he then issued legal proceedings against our member for whom we drafted a defence and all subsequent paperwork up to a final small claims hearing.

The Claimant was particularly pedantic, seeking to make currency from the very normal practice of having the Defendant’s registered address the same as their accountants, and even alleging the MOT company were not trading when the MOT took place. Our member had to obtain an email from the DVSA to confirm that the Claimant was not correct.

Expert evidence was instructed by the court at a preliminary hearing, and the subsequent report was largely in the Defendant’s favour.

Profit BoxDevelop your people like your business depends on it

What most people don’t know is that talent development doesn’t have to be complicated, high risk or expensive. Once they integrate key development stages, the results can be remarkable. Empower your team. Lead your industry. We’re your strategic learning partner, driving performance by moving skills forward.

At no stage was the Claimant able to confirm the level of the fluid dropped below the midpoint of the reservoir, let alone the minimum mark, and at the hearing, the Claimant had to be constantly steered back to the issues at hand by the judge, as he was representing himself, whilst our member was represented by counsel.

The judge determined that there was no evidence of the fluid falling below the minimum level, no evidence of a leak, and therefore, no evidence that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality when sold.

The judge found in favour of our member and awarded the costs of the hearing, £275, against the Claimant.

This shows how Lawgistics’ expertise comes to the fore in preparing cases for hearings and trials, and why spending a small amount on a barrister is usually money well spent.

We would always recommend that any legal proceedings you receive are immediately forwarded to us. Don’t be tempted to begin them yourself, that is what we are here for.

Darren FletcherLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

From initial complaint to court claim form – let us help you

You can feel assured that court deadlines are attended to with the required attention and specialism.

Is it time to ditch “Dear Sirs”?

Clearly, “Dear Sirs” is old-fashioned, but is it sexist?

Location, Location, Mislocation: A costly oversight in court attendance

What the unfortunate Claimants (husband and wife) had not appreciated, was that the hearing was listed for the court at Central London.

Court re-instates a claim because of its own error!

One wonders how many times the courts have made the same error.

To Be or Not To Be Remains the Legal Question

The Claimant had sought to reject a commercial van that he had been using for business purposes but alleged that he was a consumer.

Always Deal with Court Documents

This cost our member an application fee to the court, plus a legal representative at court for the hearing.

Assist your consumer… before it’s too late

If a consumer is ignored or refused assistance by you, and a repair is carried out, you will no longer be able to inspect the failed component.

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.