Sheriff rules purchaser of used car that developed fault 11 months later could not reject vehicle

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC DUM 6
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff McCartney

David Adam purchased the vehicle under a conditional sale agreement from Moneybarn No 1 Ltd, and averred that it could be concluded that the car had latent defects at the time of purchase. The defender argued that the car was of satisfactory quality considering its age, price, and mileage at the time it was purchased.

The case was heard by Sheriff Fiona McCartney, with Deans, advocate, appearing for the pursuer and McClymont, solicitor, for the pursuer.

Sufficiently durable

On 28 February 2022 the pursuer and defender agreed a CSA for the purchase of a 2014 model Citroen DS3 for a total of £9,290.14 including interest, payable in 59 equal monthly instalments. At purchase, the car had a mileage of 45,624 miles. The car passed an MOT test on 21 July 2022, which recommended that the pursuer monitor tyre wear and the exhaust mounting. It previously passed MOT tests in 2020, 2019, and 2018.

At some point in late 2022, the pursuer started experiencing issues with the car’s power and acceleration. When suggested repairs by two different mechanics failed to resolve the issue, he took the car to a third garage for a diagnostic test, which considered that the car needed a replacement timing chain set.

After making a complaint to the defender asking for the car to be repaired, on 1 March 2023 the pursuer sought to exercise his right to reject the car, relying on a report from Mr Muir Smith, who traded as an independent vehicle inspector. The defender rejected the pursuer’s complaint, which was not referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service as the pursuer had the right to do.

It was submitted for the pursuer that a reasonable person would expect the vehicle to be sufficiently durable to last for all, or a significant portion of, the five-year contract. The authorities relied upon by the defender pre-dated the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which entitled him to remedies in the event of a breach of section 9.

For the defender it was submitted that no evidence had been presented pointing to a fault with the car at the date of delivery. The 11-month delay in making the complaint was telling. The evidence of the defender’s expert witness Mr Campopiano, who concluded that the car would not have passed an MOT if it was misfiring, should be preferred to the pursuer’s witness Mr Smith.

Not backed up

In her decision, Sheriff McCartney said of the available evidence: “I consider that some of the pursuer’s evidence to be exaggerated. The faults arose, by his account, in September 2022 after which he tended not to use the car. That evidence is not backed up by the mileage on the car. The mileage increased by 5,357 miles between the date of delivery of car and the MOT in July 2022. At the date of the inspection by Mr Smith the mileage was 55,687. The mileage therefore increased by 4,706 miles from the MOT in July 2022 to 10 February 2023.”

She continued: “Understandably, the pursuer’s evidence could not answer the question as to what is wrong with the car. All the pursuer can say is that something was wrong with the car by January 2023. His evidence does not help to explain the assertation that the car was not of satisfactory quality with reference to the various factors in section 9 of the Act.”

Comparing the evidence from the witnesses who inspected the vehicle, Sheriff McCartney said: “I preferred the evidence from Mr Campopiano. I found his evidence well explained and articulated. I accept his evidence that an excessive misfire could be a spark plug failure, an issue with the exhaust, or something else. Accordingly, even if Mr Smith did see the car having a misfire, that of itself does not lead to the conclusion the defender is in breach of section 9 if the cause of the misfire could be something as simple as a spark plug failure.”

She concluded: “I consider the quality of the car is satisfactory, having regard to the objective nature of the test, the price that the pursuer paid for the car, the mileage of the car at purchase, the mileage between purchase and the MOT and then purchase and the inspection. There is a lack of clear evidence as to what is wrong with the car allowing the court to infer that the car had latent defects at the point of sale.”

Decree of absolvitor was therefore granted in favour of the defender.