Glasgow: 0141 221 5562 Edinburgh: 0131 220 7660

Can I keep driving my car after rejecting it under the Consumer Rights Act 2015?

Can I keep driving my car after rejecting it under the Consumer Rights Act 2015?

Can I keep driving my car after rejecting it under the Consumer Rights Act 2015?

This was the issue facing the court in a recent in a recent case we were instructed to act on behalf of the successful appellant - Alan King v Black Horse Limited [2024] CSIH 3. Found here.

Mr King had claimed his car was faulty after purchase and intimated his rejection of the car because of these faults. After the rejection of the car, Mr King continued to use, tax and pay for the car under his finance agreement. For this reason, the Sheriff dismissed his claim. This was the appealed to the Sheriff Court who agreed with the Sheriff and refused the appeal and upheld the sheriff’s decision. The case was then appealed further to the inner house of the court of session.

Black Horse Ltd had supplied the finance agreement to Mr King. They relied upon common law principle that there was an absolute bar on the continued use of goods after they had been rejected. Mr King argued that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 had created a comprehensive, simple and UK wide scheme of consumer rights and remedies including a new and substantially reformed right to reject, which had replaced the previous law on contracts for the sale and supply of goods as far as it concerned consumer contracts.

The Justice Clerk, Lady Dorian, delivered the opinion of the court and stated that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 differs in substantial ways from the protection previously offered to consumers and that once a rejection was intimated the consumer is unequivocally entitled to treat the contract as at an ended whether or not the trader accepts the rejection. From the moment that rejection is intimated, the trader is under an obligation to give a refund; and the consumer is under an obligation to make the goods available for collection. Continued use by the consumer is not incompatible with that latter obligation.

The inner house determined that the Sheriff Appeal court was wrong in respect of the claims under the 2015 act.

TC Young acted as Edinburgh agent in the appeal proceedings on behalf of Mr King. Should you require any assistance with appeal proceedings then you can contact one of our team here.

Authors

Neil Matheson