Annas El-Kihel against Santander Consumer Finance (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCGLA 16 (02 December 2025)

Annas El-Kihel against Santander Consumer Finance (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCGLA 16 (02 December 2025)

The court held that declarator was unnecessary as the defender had accepted the rejection of the vehicle. A deduction for use was appropriate, but the amount deducted by the defender (£5,100) exceeded what was reasonable (£3,896.40), so the pursuer was entitled to the difference. The sum already paid for inconvenience (£500) was adequate. The calculation of deduction for use should reflect the benefit the consumer actually received, considering the vehicle's condition and usage, but not to the extent of denying any deduction where the vehicle was still used.

Citation
[2026] SCGLA 16
Parties
Pursuer: Annas El-Kihel; Defender: Santander Consumer Finance
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Sheriff Court Civil / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Partially in favour of pursuer
Legal Topics
Deduction for Use on Rejection of Goods, Satisfactory Quality of Goods, Consumer Rights Act 2015, Compensation for Inconvenience, Calculation of Refund on Vehicle Rejection
Consumer Law Contract Law Deduction for Use on Rejection of Goods Satisfactory Quality of Goods Consumer Rights Act 2015 Compensation for Inconvenience Calculation of Refund on Vehicle Rejection

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 20
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annas El-Kihel

Pursuer

Santander Consumer Finance

Defender

Procedural Posture

Sheriff Court Civil / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to declarator regarding rejection of the vehicle
  2. 2 Whether the defender was entitled to deduct for use from the refund and the appropriate amount
  3. 3 Whether further compensation for inconvenience is due

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that declarator was unnecessary as the defender had accepted the rejection of the vehicle. A deduction for use was appropriate, but the amount deducted by the defender (£5,100) exceeded what was reasonable (£3,896.40), so the pursuer was entitled to the difference. The sum already paid for inconvenience (£500) was adequate. The calculation of deduction for use should reflect the benefit the consumer actually received, considering the vehicle's condition and usage, but not to the extent of denying any deduction where the vehicle was still used.

Court Disposition

Partially in favour of pursuer

Orders

  • Refusal of declarator as first craved
  • Decree for payment of £1,203.40 by defender to pursuer with interest at 8% per annum from 22 September 2022 until payment