Showroom dealership damaged car

[des8]

R0b still off at a tangent that RTA definition only states that supply includes sale etc. It doesn't exclude other forms of supply

Otherwise thanks!

[R0b]

Sorry Des.. in English please

I think what you are suggesting is that the defintion of supply is not an exhaustive one - presumably because it refers to "include"?

If so, then I think the ejusdem generis rule might be engaged, that is words which follow a specific word are restricted to words of that same kind, which in this case would be sale, sell etc. but obviously wouldn't extend to repair.

It's not an absolute rule but from my experience the courts do tend to take a line by saying if Parliament had intended it to be anything more, then it would have been expressly included in the legislation. Since it wasn't, the definition is restricted to the words expressly stated.

[des8]

Not my suggestion R0b , and I've spent this pm looking for that elusive court case about this
It was a case a few years back where a garage owner was prosecuted for supplying an unroadworthy (courtesy) vehicle to a customer

https://www.retailmotorlaw.co.uk/abo...hy-vehicle.htm
"It is also important to note that the offence is ‘supplying’ which is a wider definition than sale. So anytime you provide/supply a car to a customer you should consider whether the vehicle is roadworthy."

[des8]

But just found this oneevon County Council vs DB Cars Ltd (2001) [2001] EWHC Admin 521

Returning a car to its owner on the understanding that it had been repaired and had passed its MOT amounted to a "supply" for the purpose of s.75 Road Traffic Act 1988.

[R0b]

Interesting, there is also another case, Formula One Autocentres v Birmingham CC which also referred to the use of the word "supply" in the Trade Descriptions Act.

I've had a quick scan of both cases and they refern to a House of Lords case which decided that the word "supply" in the Misuse of Drugs Act (I think) had to be given its ordinary meaning and therefore extended to simply handing over the car as well as selling.

The difference between those cases and S.75 of the RTA is that S.75 specifically makes a reference to including to sell, expose a sale etc. so I think it might be arguable to say that a court could deviate from the two High Court cases that decided on the meaning of "supply".

For example, take this House of Lords case Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co Ltd v Riche which in that case a company's articles and memorandum stated that the company carried on business of 'mechanical engineers and general contractors'. The HoL said:

The memorandum of association by which the Ashbury Company was incorporated, described its objects with great particularity, the only part of it, however, to which attention need be directed is that which states that one of the objects of the ompany was to carry on the business of mechanical engineers and general contractors." The learned counsel for the Defendants in Error sought to give a very wide meaning to the words "general contractors;" but he admitted that they required some limitation, contending, however, that they extended at least to to the business of constructing railways. It appears to me that the generality of the expression is limited by its association with the previous words, "mechanical engineers," and that it ought to be confined to contracts connected with that business.

Another example is Kassam v Immigration Appeal Tribunal in the context of the Race Relations Act, s.20(1) which made it unlawful for a person concerned with the provision of 'goods, facilities or services' to discriminate on racial grounds. The court held that:

The word “facilities” in this section is flanked on one side by the word “goods” and on the other by the word “services”. This suggests to my mind that the word “facilities” is not to be given a wholly unrestricted meaning but must be limited or confined to facilities that are akin to goods or services.

So even though we are talking academically here, there could be scope to argue that because S.75 specifically refers to "supply" as including a variation of words on selling, the meaning is restrcited/confined to the sale or offering to make a sale of an unroadworthy car.

Anyway... back on topic!

[des8]

Now how do lawyers make a living ?

[R0b]

If only I was a litigation lawyer...

[Legal7319]

Thanks for the response

I can remove paragraphs 2 and 3.

The prices have been based on the cost of repair as it would have been before the damage; and based on your second post quoting the case law, I presume I can continue with the current content of the letter in demanding the cost of the repair?

I will make some amendments to strip out some of the fluff, but otherwise, would you say it is good to go?

Is it worth quoting the case you've mentioned above - or shall I reserve that for later down the line?

[R0b]

Yes, I think it is fine to continue on the basis tha what you are sekeing is the cost of the damage being repaired.

Don't think there is any need to make reference to case law at this stage unless they indicate that if you haven't paid for the repairs then they aren't obliged in which case you could make a reference to the case in response but don't get hung up on it.

[Legal7319]

It's taken a while to get a response as the letter was not long sent in. They have responded saying that I have not set out the 'core legal and evidential issues' that I faced in establishing liability. They argue that the claim amounts to fraud. They also sugget that they will pursue costs if I do not clarify the aforementioned issues.

I feel like some of the stuff that I had mentioned in my original draft may have touched upon some of the 'evidential issues' they were expecting to see?

[R0b]

I don't think you posted a revised draft of your letter, did you? I think it would be best to give us a copy of that letter you sent in and also their response so we can see what we are dealing with.

Ensure that personal information is redacted before posting.

[Legal7319]

You should be able to see the letter sent in via this link easily: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

As for what I received, see attached:

[R0b]

Sorry I cant open the link.

[Legal7319]

Here it is.

To Whom It May Concern:

Our vehicle, as referenced above, was delivered to you on 19 December 2018 for a recall relating to the repair of the ventilation system. By agreeing to carry out the necessary repairs in accordance with the recall notice, you were under a duty to take care of the vehicle but, according to the latest damage report, this was not the case. During the vehicle was under your responsibility, and whilst on your site over a period of approximately 4 months it acquired damage to the bodywork which you have detailed in your damage report sent to XX via email. In comparison to the initial damage report, you have clearly evidenced further areas of damage that was not present at the time of drop off, nor at the point of the initial inspection. I have attached both of these copies to this letter.


Efforts were made to retrieve the car at our earliest convenience, and you may recall an attempted collection at the beginning of the year where we were informed the ‘keys were not ready’, which as a result meant another collection had to be arranged due to no fault of our own.


In May we received threatening correspondence from XXX solicitors appointed by your firm which stated the vehicle may be sold to cover the costs of storage if collection of the vehicle was not forthcoming. Your solicitor also levied these unsolicited costs on us without appreciating that a previous attempt of collection was made but refused by your colleagues.


We have extensive evidence to prove your firm’s liability in this matter, and I have selected and briefly summarised some of the evidence which we will be drawing upon in Court, should you choose the matter to escalate:

• Strong evidence illustrated from the damage report at drop off and vehicle collection demonstrating damage to the vehicle through your admission;
• The refusal of the 3 attempted collections causing the prolonging of the storage of vehicle on your premises;

In conclusion, I have since obtained a quote from a reputable garage to repair the additional damage which has been quoted at £XXX. I have also provided a copy of this report. We wish to conclude this matter amicably and between ourselves to limit unnecessary spiraling legal costs. Therefore, a payment of the aforementioned sum is required to the above address within the next 14 days via cheque. If no payment is forthcoming by way of cheque, we will, without hesitation proceed to Court and draw upon the strong evidence we have prepared to support our case. Should you dispute any part of this claim then I require you to acknowledge this letter within 7 days and provide me with your full response within 28 days with evidence.


Furthermore, I should also point out that under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Court has the power to impose sanctions should you fail to comply. If you ignore this letter or fail to respond within 28 days, I will commence legal proceedings against your firm and seek interest at a rate of 8% per annum in accordance with Section 69 of the County Court Act 1984 together with any other recoverable costs or expenses. We will also bring this letter to the Court’s attention when dealing with the issue of costs and your non-compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules if necessary.


I trust that legal proceedings is not necessary and that we can resolve this matter without either party incurring further expense.


I look forward to hearing from you in due course.



Kind Regards

[R0b]

How much correspondence has there been? They seem to be saying you havent addressed points in their previous letter, are we able to see that letter?