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

[djz]

It's been a long week again. Managed to draft something to respond to the defence. Hopefully it is acceptable with some minor tweaks. Thanks in advance!




1. The Defendant admits the applicability of the CRA but denies breach. However, the core issue remains whether the vehicle met the standards of satisfactory quality, as required under Section 9 of the CRA. The Claimant will demonstrate that the vehicle did not meet these standards at the point of sale.

2. While the vehicle was almost 8 years old and had covered approximately 95,000 miles at the time of sale, the CRA still requires that it be of satisfactory quality considering its age, mileage and price. The Claimant will argue that the vehicle's significant defects, which manifested soon after purchase, indicate it was not of satisfactory quality.

3. The Defendant's point that the Claimant managed to cover 3,038 miles without issues does not preclude the possibility that the vehicle had latent defects present at the point of sale. The CRA presumes that any defect within the first six months existed at the time of delivery unless the seller can prove otherwise.

4. The Claimant took the vehicle to xxxxx Ltd for a diagnostic test and later received an invoice for suggested minimal repairs amounting to £2,2xx.06. This significant repair cost so soon after purchase suggests that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the point of sale. The Claimant will provide evidence of these diagnostics and repair costs.

5. The Defendant claims the vehicle was dismantled and had parts missing upon return. The Claimant asserts that any dismantling was necessary to diagnose the significant engine issues present, which should have been the Defendant's responsibility to address. The vehicle was returned to the Defendant in a suitable condition for further diagnosis.

6. The Defendant's offer to pay £2,000 as a gesture of goodwill without admission of liability was not accepted by the Claimant because it would not cover the full repair costs and also would not allow for future rejection under the CRA in case the repair would not be suitable. The Claimant will argue that the offer does not negate the vehicle's unsatisfactory quality at the point of sale.

7. Passing a pre-sale MOT does not necessarily mean the vehicle was of satisfactory quality under the CRA. An MOT primarily ensures basic road worthiness, not overall quality and fitness for purpose as required by the CRA.

8. The definition of satisfactory quality under Section 9 of the CRA considers whether the goods meet the standard a reasonable person would find acceptable. The Claimant will argue that a reasonable person would not expect a vehicle sold for £7,xxx to incur such substantial repair costs shortly after purchase.

9. The CRA presumes any defect occurring within six months of delivery existed at delivery, shifting the burden to the seller to prove otherwise. The Defendant has not provided sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption.

10. The Defendant's reliance on cases such as Bartlett v Sidney Marcus and Thain v Anniesland Trade Centre will be distinguished. These cases predate the CRA and involve different facts and legal standards. The Claimant will argue that under the CRA, the standard for satisfactory quality has been clearly defined and the vehicle in question did not meet this standard.

11. The Defendant's admission that the Claimant is entitled to interest on any amount recovered is noted. The Claimant maintains that the pleaded value of the claim is accurate and will provide evidence to support this.

12. The Claimant will demonstrate that the vehicle did not meet the satisfactory quality required under the CRA, given the significant defects and suggested repair costs incurred shortly after purchase. The Defendant's arguments regarding age, mileage and initial use do not negate the CRA's protections and the Claimant will provide strict proof of all allegations made.

13. The Defendant initially offered to repair the vehicle at no cost to the Claimant, invoking what he described as "the rite to repair." This offer aligns with the Defendant's obligations under the CRA, which allows the seller to repair or replace goods if they do not conform to the contract. However, the Defendant later refused to repair the vehicle at no cost to the Claimant, which constitutes a breach of this obligation. The Claimant relied on the Defendant's initial offer, which was later retracted, causing further inconvenience and financial loss. The Defendant's refusal to honour this initial offer further demonstrates a failure to comply with the CRA requirements and undermines the argument that the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale.

[Pezza54]

Point 4
Is "minimal repairs" right and should it be "estimate" (or "quotation") and not "invoice"
Otherwise reads ok. File it and send a copy to the claimant when you return your DQ

[djz]

Thank you, I have changed that. I have also added another point to the reply to defence:

14. The Defendant currently has possession of the vehicle and has not offered any viable solution for returning it in a repaired and satisfactory condition. Despite the Defendant's initial offer to repair the vehicle at no cost, which was subsequently retracted, the vehicle remains with the Defendant without any further attempts to rectify the situation. The lack of communication or action from the Defendant regarding the return of the vehicle in a roadworthy and acceptable state has left the Claimant with no choice but to reject the vehicle. This ongoing failure to resolve the issue further supports the Claimant's position that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the point of sale, as required by the CRA.


I sent that in along with the form N180, the Civil Money Claims service have responded and said that Reply to Defence and any Evidence can not be processed at this stage and needs to be sent in again once a judge has looked at the case.

So we have just responded disagreeing with the defence, the case still should go forward with mediation & a hearing at our a court closest to the claimant (our) home address.

[Pezza54]

Much of point 14 repeats what you stated in 13. Is it too late to amend 14?
Did the defendant have a paragraph 14 that you wanted to respond to|?

[djz]

No, it's not too late to amend the Response to Defence. The service said the document was rejected at this stage as it hasn't been assigned to a court (We also didn't send it to the defendant as yet).

Point 14 was more of a general comment. Should just be removed, since it isn't responding to a particular point in their defence?

Each paragraph/point in my response to defence doesn't really respond to a specific point in their defence, perhaps I should modify it to do so?