Santander Consumer (UK) Plc against Renata Dikmone (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2026] SACCIV 26 (03 September 2025)

Santander Consumer (UK) Plc against Renata Dikmone (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2026] SACCIV 26 (03 September 2025)

The sheriff erred in law by finding Orange Finance was an agent of the appellant without evidential or pleading basis, and by holding the respondent had validly exercised the final right to reject without satisfying section 24(5) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The consumer had not given the appellant an opportunity to repair or replace the vehicle before rejection. The appeal was sustained and the sheriff's decision overturned.

Citation
[2026] SACCIV 26
Parties
Pursuer, Appellant and Cross Respondent: Santander Consumer (UK) PLC; Defender, Respondent and Cross Appellant: Renata Dikmone, as executrix dative of the late Ramunas Dikmonas
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal sustained; sheriff's decision overturned; by order hearing fixed for final disposal and expenses.
Legal Topics
Conditional Sale Agreements, Right to Reject Goods, Satisfactory Quality of Goods, Agency, Personal Bar, Remedies Under Consumer Rights Act 2015
Consumer Law Contract Law Conditional Sale Agreements Right to Reject Goods Satisfactory Quality of Goods Agency Personal Bar Remedies Under Consumer Rights Act 2015

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santander Consumer (UK) PLC

Pursuer, Appellant and Cross Respondent

Renata Dikmone, as executrix dative of the late Ramunas Dikmonas

Defender, Respondent and Cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vehicle was of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose at the point of sale
  2. 2 Whether the consumer was entitled to exercise the right to reject under the Consumer Rights Act 2015
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in law regarding agency and the application of statutory remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff erred in law by finding Orange Finance was an agent of the appellant without evidential or pleading basis, and by holding the respondent had validly exercised the final right to reject without satisfying section 24(5) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The consumer had not given the appellant an opportunity to repair or replace the vehicle before rejection. The appeal was sustained and the sheriff's decision overturned.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained; sheriff's decision overturned; by order hearing fixed for final disposal and expenses.

Orders

  • Sheriff's findings regarding agency and right to reject set aside.
  • Respondent's cross-appeal refused.