Another Lawgistics client has a County Court claim against them dismissed!

A consumer issued proceedings against one of our clients. The Claim was in reference to paintwork on the vehicle.

Brief description of the case. The vehicle was over 4 years old with the price tag of £16,289.00 at the time of sale it was agreed the seller would incur the cost of a smart repair to be carried out on a bumper. The consumer didn’t arrange for this repair to be carried out until some two months after taking possession of the vehicle. However a further five months later (7 months the vehicle being in the consumers care) the consumer contacted the seller to report the paintwork lifting. The consumer provided their own report which suggested the fault was a common occurrence from stone chips.

Whilst there is no evidence to suggest the paintwork was defective or fault at the time of purchase or had been caused from the previous smart repair the seller offered to incur the cost for the repair to be carried out by a company in the interest of maintaining good relations as a gesture of goodwill.  

This was flatly refused by the consumer due to this being a “inconvenience” and requested other costs to be paid such as loss of earnings and transport costs. The consumer issued proceedings.

Firstly it was brought to the Judge’s attention the failure of the consumer to submit a witness statement in accordance to the previous court order. The Judge then questioned on what legal grounds was the consumer bringing the claim under and the need for the Claimant to prove such claim.  Further the Judge questioned the motive for rejecting the offer put forward by the seller and rejected the response of it being inconvenient.

The Judge agreed the offer by the seller was deemed as a good will gesture and not an admission of liability. The Judge held the Claimant did not provide evidence  in support of what the problem was nor that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality or was present at the time of sale to establish the claim therefore as the Claimant failed to prove the case, the claim was dismissed and the Claimant was ordered to pay the transport costs of the Defendant (our client).

 

Authors: Roxanne Bradley

Published: 24 Nov 2016

Comments

To ensure you are a real person signing up and to prevent automated signups (spamming) could we ask you to copy the letters and numbers shown below into the box.

(cAse SeNSItivE!)

There are no comments



Share this Article