10:33 am, February 4, 2026
A used car dealership has finally won a long-running legal battle against a customer who repeatedly exploited distance-selling rules, after his final appeal was rejected.
Williams Group Maidstone, trading as PCBS Sales and operating dealerships in Maidstone and Wolverhampton, sold a used Tesla Model X to Duncan Edward Humber for £81,975 in September 2022.
Humber, of Oxted in Surrey, structured the transaction so that payment was made on September 7 – the day before collection – with the sales invoice signed remotely by email.
Humber also told the dealership he wanted a ‘collection-only experience’, claiming it would reduce stress, resulting in most of the deal being concluded remotely.
However, in June 2023 – nine months after taking ownership of the EV – Humber contacted the dealership seeking a full refund, arguing the sale fell under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (CCR).
He claimed he had not been given the required distance-selling cancellation notice, meaning he had up to a year and 14 days to return the vehicle for a full refund.
By then, the Tesla was worth an estimated £55,000, leaving Williams Group to stomach a potential loss of almost £27,000.
Faced with such a huge hit, the firm contacted automotive legal experts Lawgistics, who had previous experience of Humber from when he pulled off similar efforts during lockdown.
While those earlier examples could not be defended, as the retailers were legitimately operating distance-selling models during lockdown, Williams Group’s case did end up before Bromley County Court, where District Judge Paul Brooks ruled in the car dealer’s favour.
Despite this, the customer sought permission to appeal the judgment, which had been delivered in writing over 18 pages.
When the trial judge refused the request, a written application was made, which was also rejected.
Not to be put off, Humber then submitted an verbal application, which has now been refused once again – bringing an end to the protracted saga.
Reacting to the latest news, Nona Bowkis, head of legal services at Lawgistics, said: ‘During the second case, it became apparent that these Tesla refund scenarios, were not the customer’s first rodeo and he had taken advantage of dealers not being fully aware of the Distance Sales rules previously.
‘And, not to be deterred from trying it again, the customer sought permission to appeal the judgment, which had been delivered in writing over 18 very detailed pages.
‘The trial judge refused permission and so a written application was made. The court refused that application. The customer then followed up with an oral application, and we were advised this week, that permission was refused again.
‘This customer has finally reached the end of the road and our dealer can relax.’
‘Misleading’
In his initial judgement, reached in August 2024, Judge Brook said the payment of the holding deposit didn’t constitute a contract.
He also said: ‘Although it is not suggested that [Humber] acted illegally, or indeed immorally, it is clear from his previous endeavours where he had successfully relied on the CCR…that he was doing his utmost to secure a remote purchase.
‘In my judgment when he informed (the sales person) that he wished to have a collection-only experience, this was at best misleading and at worst untruthful, as his true intention was to secure a remote transaction to ensure he could rely on the CCR and reject the car when he chose to.’
The judge added: ‘He knew exactly what he was seeking to achieve.
‘Whilst there may be some truth to wanting a collection-only experience, I find that he was being disingenuous as it is clear from his evidence that his true intention was that he wanted the ability to reject the car at a time of his choosing.’
Lawgistics urged dealers to make it clear that:
- A holding deposit is purely to take a vehicle off viewing rather than an actual deposit on the vehicle
- The dealership doesn’t operate an organised distance sales scheme
It also recommended that dealers drop the word ‘deposit’ altogether in these cases and use the term ‘reservation fee’ instead.
