A CAR trader accused of placing an advert with misleading mileage has had the charge against him dropped.

Now Michael Barbato, the proprietor of Swindon Trade Centre, is trying to have the council pay thousands of pounds to cover his legal costs, claiming the case should never have been brought.

Mr Barbato, 55, pleaded not guilty to engaging in a commercial practice, which is a misleading action, at Swindon Crown Court.

It was alleged he placed an advertisement containing untruthful information understating the mileage the car had travelled.

After he entered his plea prosecutors said they would be offering no evidence as they could not show it was likely to lead to a consumer making a transactional decision.

Oliver Willmott, for the Crown, said the advert for a Renault Megane said the 53-reg vehicle had done just 12,000 miles, when in reality it had done about 66,000.

“One of the difficulties with protection of consumer unfair trading: one has to show a causal link to a transactional decision such as by a circumspect consumer,” he said.

“They would have seen the odometer, asked for the paperwork, then made a decision. The Crown can’t prove a causal link to a transactional decision.”

Mr Willmott said it was not a case where the car had been clocked but that the odometer had been replaced.

Judge Peter Blair QC entered a formal not guilty verdict ending the case against Mr Barbato, of Oakham Close, Toothill.

Stewart Patterson, defending, said: “The defendant has been put to considerable trouble and expense as a result of the charges being brought.”

He said his client was a man of good character and the allegation, which could carry up to two years in jail, had an affect on his livelihood.

At the moment he said his legal costs were £2,250 plus VAT for three court hearings, a conference, reading the case papers and providing a defence statement.

He said: “The fact is this was a non starter. At the preliminary hearing there were seven charges on the indictment: six dropped before this hearing.

“I ask for an application against the prosecuting authorities because this should never have been brought. It was unnecessary.

“The defendant has been put to expense, he should not be in a position where he is financially disadvantaged. It was never a viable prosecution.”

The judge adjourned the costs application for both sides allowing them time to present their arguments in accordance with case law.