Most vehicle disputes are not about the law. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is clear enough; so are the principles of valuation and repair. What stalls these cases is a question of fact that neither side can test: what actually caused the fault, whether the repair was done properly, whether the damage matches the account, why the component failed. Getting both sides to the same understanding of the evidence generally has to happen before anyone can talk sensibly about remedy.

Where the engineering background does real work

I came to mediation from vehicle engineering: a technician from 1997, a race-team engineer, a research engineer on crash structures at Cranfield. I read the engineering reports, estimates and photographs directly. Nobody has to explain the subject matter to me first, and where a dispute has stalled on a technical fact, that question can be opened up rather than worked around.

Typical matters include:

  • The rejected vehicle — the buyer wants their money back; the supplier says the fault is wear and tear. Diagnosis, defect and fault disputes under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
  • The disputed repair — the invoice is contested and the work is already done. Separating what was necessary from what was additional, and establishing what it was reasonably worth, is often where the settlement is found.
  • Total loss and valuation — the insurer’s figure and the owner’s figure are far apart, each defensible on its own comparables. The gap is methodological rather than moral, which makes it more tractable than it looks. Pre-accident value, diminution, salvage categorisation and write-off disputes.
  • Credit hire and repair period — reasonable repair period, rate and need, between insurers, hire organisations and policyholders.
  • Component and product failure — fracture, fatigue and corrosion; why the part failed, and whose problem that is.
  • Specialist, classic and motorsport vehicles — restoration quality, valuation and build disputes where ordinary comparables do not apply.

What is on offer, and what is not

This is a mediation practice. I am not offering to act as anyone’s expert, and I express no opinion on the engineering or on the merits. The expert work is simply where the subject knowledge came from. Where a question can only be answered by physical examination or a jointly instructed opinion, a mediation can build that in rather than leave two reports passing each other in the post.

Also considered, subject to conflict check

Transport and logistics disputes; insurance and indemnity where the underlying question is technical; landlord and tenant dilapidations; and personal injury where I have no expert relationship with any party or insurer.