As a motor dealer, you know this story all too well.
A customer buys a used car from you. A few weeks later, they notice a minor issue, maybe a bit of noise or some condensation. But instead of working with you, they rush to an independent garage, get a sky high repair estimate, and demand that you foot the bill.
When a dealership recently faced this exact scenario, they didn’t roll over and pay. Instead, they stood their ground using a powerful strategy during the initial complaint process, and the court ultimately dismissed the case entirely.
The customer had purchased a second hand car with 44,000 miles on the clock. Within 30 days, they contacted the dealership complaining about a noisy clutch and a misty headlight. Wanting to resolve the matter fairly and commercially, the dealership offered a pragmatic, early solution: a full buy back refund.
But the customer flatly refused. They claimed they couldn’t be without a vehicle, went ahead with the third party repairs anyway, and then hit the dealer with a court claim for the cost of the repairs which was for just over £2,000. From a review of the complaint the customer was clearly using the glorious chat GPT to draft their letters.
That is where our pre court strategy made all the difference. Here at Legalsolutions4u we specialise in helping dealerships handle customer complaints long before they ever step into a courtroom. We helped this dealership construct a robust, common sense position during the early stages of the dispute, building a foundation centered on two key realities:
• We explained that when any customer is buying a used car it inherently carries a risk of wear and tear. Because the dealership had conducted thorough, documented pre sale checks, minor issues arising weeks later did not mean the car was defective when it left the forecourt.
• A customer cannot simply reject a fair commercial solution and then force a dealer to pay for an uneconomical repair. By offering a full refund right away, the dealership acted entirely reasonably. The customer’s decision to refuse the dealerships offer of settlement was a clear failure to mitigate their losses.
Because this exact position was established clearly and correctly early on, the customer’s legal claim fell completely flat at court. The Court agreed that the minor clutch and headlight issues did not make the vehicle unsatisfactory for its age and mileage. Crucially, the Judge explicitly noted that the dealership’s early offer of a full refund was completely reasonable, and because the customer couldn’t justify why they rejected it, the entire claim was dismissed.
The positive for your dealership is simple, you do not have to succumb to the pressure of the customers AI demands which may be incorrectly misplaced nor do you need to succumb to the pressure of paying for inflated, third party repair bills just to keep the peace. When you handle initial customer complaints with a clear, sound strategy, you protect your business and your bottom line from future claims.
If you want to ensure your dealership handles customer complaints with this exact level of precision from day one, let’s talk, call us on 01914813992.
Warm regards,
Legalsolutions4u