Consumer continued to drive vehicle to destruction regardless – claim dismissed

legal updates

The Consumer had wrongly taken it upon himself to continue driving the vehicle to destruction,

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.

Last week a client attended Court in Wrexham to face a claim for almost £10,000 by a consumer seeking a full refund for breach of contract who was alleging that the vehicle supplied by the Dealer was not of satisfactory quality.

The Judge found that whilst the reported issue may have been present at the time of purchase, the Consumer had wrongly taken it upon himself to continue driving the vehicle to destruction, despite clear warning signs, third party advice and a specific request from the Dealer to return the vehicle for inspection, immediately once the problem had been reported.

Indeed, upon receiving notice of the problem, the Dealer emailed the Consumer back within just 5 minutes to request inspection.

Unfortunately, the Consumer continued to drive the vehicle for some time thereafter before it suffered a catastrophic engine failure and then he sought to reject the wrecked vehicle and claimed a full refund.

The fact that the Dealer acted entirely properly and in writing so quickly was instrumental in the Courts decision, as was the Consumer’s obvious disregard for the very clear warnings, which had been before him.

Moreover, under effective cross examination by our client and the Judge, the Consumer made many mistakes and was simply unable to answer certain questions.

A good case is one thing, but good preparation is crucial and here at Lawgistics we ensure that all Court cases are prepared fully and properly to ensure that our clients have the best possible chance of success before the Courts. 

Should you require assistance in dealing with a rejected vehicle or a court case Lawgistics members can contact the legal team.

Impression Communications LtdPutting the motive in automotive

Impression works with businesses across the automotive aftermarket supply chain such as parts suppliers, warehouse distributors, motor factors and independent garages. Covering all aspects of automotive aftermarket marketing, including social media, event management, customer newsletters and PR, Impression is able to quickly establish itself within a client’s business and work towards their objectives.

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.

Mediation appointments: the court’s take on ‘delays’

You can tell the court you’re unavailable, but will that stop a telephone mediation being listed? In our client’s case it didn’t, and the refusal to move it now means a full hearing next year.

Witness Statements: Own the Weakness and Turn Up to Court

Courts are scrutinising credibility more than ever. A Witness Statement that ducks its weak points or a witness who fails to attend risks serious damage to their case

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.