It has been said that 80% of claims and disputes are resolved on the evidence.

But determining what is evidence and who bears the evidential burden of proof is not always as easy as it sounds.

It is a central principle of English law that the person making a claim or complaint bears the burden of proving it.

But it is often forgotten that evidence is assessed or weighed based in its believability or persuasiveness. In the claims or dispute resolution process this evidential burden automatically shifts from one party to the other. Each bears the burden of proving the elements of their claim or defence.

The application of the rules of evidence was the key to the rejection of this motorhome.

How the motorhome legal case began

Mr & Mrs S had dreamt of buying a motorhome for weekends away and touring the UK and Europe, working and saving hard to achieve it.

Eventually they poured their £44,000 life savings into the low mileage Fiat Swift Bolero Motorhome being sold by a specialist motorhome and campervan dealer.

As they drove out of the dealership in the Motorhome, the fuel light came on. Although there was a petrol station almost next to the dealer it was busy with motorists refuelling. So they drove for about 10 minutes to the next one and put about £60.00 worth of diesel in the vehicle.

A few miles later it broke down and was recovered back to the dealership.

The dealer explained that they had called Fuel Fixer to attend and had sent a fuel sample to FA-ST for analysis. The results led them to conclude the motorhome had either been misfuelled or the fuel paid for by Mr S was contaminated.

Because of this, the dealer declined liability for the repair or rejection of the motorhome.

The case: a faulty motorhome

Mr & Mrs S instructed Stormcatcher to analyse the facts and the evidence relied on by the seller in concluding the engine failure was caused by misfuelling or contaminated fuel after delivery, and prepare and send a legal opinion setting out the reasons why their conclusions were incorrect.

This case involves the conclusions arrived at through deductive logic and the legal principals of competing theories of causation.

Simply the dealer concluded, because there had been no problems with the motorhome before it left the premises, and because the engine failed after refuelling and because the fuel sample was contaminated; the engine must have failed because of contaminated fuel from the garage visited by Mr S.

In fact, there are two possibilities. One being the one put forward by the dealer, and the other being that the contamination existed in the motorhome before it was refueled.

The facts that the dealer’s mechanic had inspected the vehicle, Fuel Fixer had drained the tank and cleaned the fuel system with petrol, and a fuel sample of unrecorded provenance was relied on, ironically led to the potential for contaminated evidence.

The motorhome had been virtually idle for at least a year and no additional fuel added.

The Shell garage had no record of any complaints about fuel contamination. Mr & Mrs S had proof of the fuel purchased.

Therefore, on balance, the contamination was more likely to have been pre-existent.

How we got the buyer’s motorhome refund

The difficulty the dealer had was that it had the burden of proving that the cause of the engine failure emanated from refuelling, which it could not do.

Although a lengthy process, we eventually resolved the matter and Mr & Mrs S received a full refund of the purchase price and compensation.

Seeking a refund for a faulty motorhome?

If you’re looking to be refunded for a faulty motorhome, we’re the experts to trust; contact Stormcatcher Law for advice on 0333 700 7676.