Used car problems

[Pezza54]

Do you mean the court claim not "request"?

[djz]

We have today received a Notice of Acting from some motor trade litigation expert - the type which cost a few hundred £ to handle the case & a notice of Defendant response extension, around three weeks. Will see what happens next.

[djz]

Do you mean the court claim not "request"?

Yes, sorry, I mean the court claim.

[djz]

We have had a response today, the defendant has disputed all of the claim, with the following defence:

1. At all material times the Defendant was a motor trader in the business of buying and selling motor vehicles and for the purpose of this claim, it is accepted that the Claimant was a consumer.

2. As to paragraph 3.2.1.1 of the pleadings, the Defendant admits the applicability of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) but denies breach.

3. As to paragraph 3.4. 2.1 of the pleadings, it is admitted that on XX August 2023, the Claimant purchased a XX registration number XXXX XXX (the “vehicle”) for the price of £7,xxx. At the time of sale, the vehicle was almost 8 years old and had covered approximately 95,xxx miles. Patently the vehicle was part-worn and well-used at the time of sale and the issue of satisfactory quality must be viewed in such context.

4. No admissions are made as to paragraph 3.5.2.2 of the pleadings and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof. By the Claimant’s own admission, she managed to use the vehicle to cover 3,038 miles without any issues, indicating there were no problems with the vehicle at the point of sale.

5. No admissions are made as to paragraph 3.6.2.3 of the pleadings. It is understood that the Claimant recovered the vehicle to a local garage known as Walkers Autotech Ltd for a diagnostic test.

6. Paragraph 3.7.2.4 of the pleadings is neither admitted nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof. The Claimant provided the Defendant with an invoice from xxxxxxxxxxxx Ltd dated 24 January 2024 for repairs totalling £2,xxx.06.

7. The Claimant recovered the vehicle from xxxxxxxxxxxxx Ltd to the Defendant on or around 19 February 2024. Upon arrival, the Defendant noticed that the vehicle had been dismantled with various parts missing. The Defendant did not return the vehicle in the condition that it was sold as required by the CRA.

8. Paragraph 3.8.2.5 to 3.11.2.8 of the pleadings is neither admitted nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.

9. Following a series of negotiations, as a gesture of goodwill and without any admission of liability, the Defendant agreed to pay £2,000 towards the invoice for £2,xxxx.06 from xxxxxxxxxxxx Ltd, and cover the cost of recovering the vehicle back to xxxxxxxxxxxx Ltd. However, the offer was not accepted.

10. As to paragraph 3.12 to 3.17, the Defendant repeats paragraph 2 of this Defence.

11. On 4 August 2023, the vehicle passed a pre-sale MOT in accordance with DVSA requirements with no advisories. The vehicle was deemed roadworthy as a result.

12. The Claimant admits at paragraph 3.5.2.2 of the pleadings that she managed to cover 3,038 miles before encountering any alleged problems with the vehicle. If the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the point of sale, the Claimant would not have been able to cover 3,038 miles.

13. Just because a car has a fault or its owner finds that it is unsatisfactory, does not make it of unsatisfactory quality. The definition of satisfactory quality is set out in s9(2) CRA, which says: (2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory ……

14. Fitness for purpose is also judged from the point of view of the reasonable person.

15. The quality of a motor car is judged at the date of delivery.

16. The CRA suggests any defect which occurs within 6 months of delivery is deemed to have been present at delivery, unless the seller proves the contrary. The Claimant has not discharged this burden.

17. Further, the Defendant will rely upon the authority of Bartlett v Sidney Marcus [1965] 1 WLR 1013, per Lord Denning: “On the sale of a second-hand car, it is merchantable if it is in a useable condition, even if not perfect... A buyer should realise that when he buys a second-hand car defects may appear sooner or later and, in the absence of an express warranty otherwise, he has no redress.”

18. The Defendant will also rely on the persuasive authority of Thain v Anniesland Trade Centre [1997] SLT (Sh Ct) 102, in which a second-hand car was held to have been sold in a state of satisfactory quality, despite developing a catastrophic gearbox fault after two weeks of use.

19. Such authorities remain good law, notwithstanding the provisions of the 1979 Act and even the CRA, in any event.

20. The Defendant admits the Claimant is entitled to interest on such amount as they may recover at Trial and at such rate or rates and for such a period or periods as the Court considers just.

21. The Claimant’s timeline of events is neither admitted nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.

22. No admissions are made as to the pleaded value of the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof. The Defendant reserves the right to file and serve a Counter-Schedule.

23. Unless specifically admitted or otherwise stated, the Defendant denies each and every allegation made against it herein and the Claimant is hereby put to strict proof of his claim.

They have asked for a hearing local to the defendant (220 miles away from us), with the following reason:

Closest Court to the Defendant's address and from where the Claimant chose to purchase the vehicle.

Also, the car is still with the Defendant and we have had no additional communication with the Defendant.

[Pezza54]

As I stated in an earlier post the weak points of your claim are the the age and mileage of the car and the car returned to the dealer with the engine not fully reassembled
If your wife still wants to proceed with her claim and not negotiate, she should draft her Reply to Defence and file this document when she returns the Directions Questionnaire
If the defendant was a lip the hearing would normally take place at the defendant's choice of court. As the defendant is a company and has employed a legal representative, your wife should ask for the hearing to take place at her local county court.

[djz]

As I stated in an earlier post the weak points of your claim are the the age and mileage of the car and the car returned to the dealer with the engine not fully reassembled
If your wife still wants to proceed with her claim and not negotiate, she should draft her Reply to Defence and file this document when she returns the Directions Questionnaire
If the defendant was a lip the hearing would normally take place at the defendant's choice of court. As the defendant is a company and has employed a legal representative, your wife should ask for the hearing to take place at her local county court.

Thank you. We have looked the online form (new version of MCOL) which asks if she would like to continue (yes she would).

We have also asked to use the mediation service.

The form asks about the "Suitability for determination without a hearing". The defence says it is not suitable, due to "Technical nature. We wish to cross examine the opponent and be cross examined.". We believe it to be suitable to be determined without a hearing, but would like to hear your view.

We have not asked for the court's permission to hire an expert witness, but the defence has asked for this.

We have selected the closest court to us. Do we need to point out in our response that this is the case, or will the court service already understand this?

The form doesn't have any option for a Reply to Defence. The CoP states "15.8 If a claimant files a reply to the defence, the claimant must
(a) file the reply with a directions questionnaire; and
(b) serve the reply on the other parties at the same time as it is filed.".

So we are wondering about the practicalities of sending a Reply to Defence. Do we send a printed letter to the defendant's correspondence address as well as a separate letter to the court? Is there anything we need to include other than the claim number? I will draft the response tomorrow.


Thank you again for the help. It is very much appreciated.

[Pezza54]

If you are using MCOL why not attach the Directions Questionnaire and Reply to Defence to an email sent to the court and to the defendant.
As the defendant has stated they want to cross examine the claimant at a hearing the court is likely to decide the claim is unsuitable to be decided without a hearing. To show your wife believes in her claim she should agree to a hearing
Point out that the selected court is the closest to the claimant's home address
In addition to the claim number, provide the names of the claimant and defendant in the email subject title