Fault did not render the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality – Claim dismissed

legal updates

A Lawgistics Pre Delivery Inspection checklist would help evidence that the vehicle was in the best possible condition when it was sold.

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.

At the final hearing in early May the Judge initially suggested that the six month rule applied, i.e. that goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the Consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

However, Counsel for the Trader argued that this only applied for the purposes of the remedies in section 48A of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and not for the purposes of determining a breach of contract claim and the Judge accepted that argument.

Counsel for the Trader went on to argue that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the fault (electrical) was present on the 31 March. This issue was hotly contested by the Consumers representative.

Even if the fault was present on the 31 March, it was argued that it did not render the Vehicle of unsatisfactory quality since (a) the Vehicle was second hand with 40,000 miles on the clock; (b) the fault was resolved quickly; (c) the Vehicle had driven for 300 miles since repair without further issue; and (d) the total cost of repair was just £103 inclusive.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Judge found (1) that the fault manifested on the 7 April was probably present on the 31 March; and (2) that the fault was not such as to render the Vehicle not of satisfactory quality. Claim dismissed.

Another famous victory for common sense and Lawgistsics!

A Lawgistics Pre Delivery Inspection checklist would help evidence that the vehicle was in the best possible condition when it was sold. For advice on this or any consumer related issues Lawgistics members can speak with the legal team.

DMS NavigatorDealer Management System software for Car Sales, Aftersales and eCommerce

Our dealers use us to help them be more Efficient and Profitable!

You can use our Dealer and Lead Management software to integrate all dealership departments, both online and physical ; providing all in-house functions; Invoicing, Stock Management, Accounting and Marketing as well as interfacing for advertising, ecommerce and more.

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Don’t Get Soaked: The Habitation Checks That Stop Motorhome Rejections

Buyers are rejecting motorhomes for damp, leaks and unsafe cabins. Here’s what to inspect in the habitation area and why a simple pre-sale check can save you a costly Consumer Rights Act dispute.

Can You Claim What You Haven’t Lost? The ‘No Loss’ Principle Meets s19 CRA 2015

A live claim against a member raises a sharp question: if no money has changed hands and only deductions are in dispute, has the claimant suffered a recoverable loss?

To Repair or Not to Repair: that is the question

A customer drops off a car three months after purchase and asks for a refund. You might have a right to repair, but touch a spanner without clear permission and you could turn a winnable case into an unwanted rejection.

Winter Is Coming: Stop Seasonal Complaints Before They Start

Winter faults spark a spike in consumer complaints. A few extra pre-sale checks now can save you a world of hassle when the temperature drops.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015: Bête noire or useful tool?

Section 19(14) isn’t a magic wand for consumers, and Sections 23 and 24 give traders real leverage. Here’s how to use repairs, disproportionality and usage deductions to keep disputes under control.

Proving the ‘chain of custody’ can be a challenge

Conflicting interests on a used car can turn a simple purchase into a legal minefield. Here’s how to evidence the chain, challenge a finance claim, and spot the red flags before you hand over the cash.

Sale or Return: Why “Private Sale” won’t save you from Consumer Rights Act responsibilities

Dealers using Sale or Return cannot hide behind “private sale” labels unless the agency position is made crystal clear from the advert onward. Miss that step and you risk CRA 2015 claims and a DMCCA 2024 breach.

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.