DX - the lease agreement does state that the car has to be handed back in a drivable condition etc. SO I was forced to pay for the clutch repair to allow this to happen. It was a frozen morning when the girl turned up for the car - had I known this I wouldn't have repaired the windscreen, but when it was booked it was raining for days...

BankFodder, I didn't record calls, because they were simply me asking to speak to the complaints handler, and being told he will call back. Twice a day - and phone records will show this. If push comes to shove a FOI request for their call records will back this up. When you lease a car, you can take it with or without servicing - our broker advised not to take servicing. It was out of warranty after 3 years. But my argument is the lease was for 4 years/32K miles - although we extended if for an extra year, it was still within the mileage, and the clutch failed and the windscreen leaked. In my opinion it wasn't fit for purpose and the lease company are in breach of contract by leasing a vehicle as such.

Manxman, clutch failed 26th October. I emailed Landrover about this, informing them that I would pay for an independent inspection, and giving them the opportunity to collect the vehicle and repair using their people. A week later = no reply. I spoke with a lawyer who said it was the lease company I had to deal with, so emailed Lex on 6th October. I told them the same thing - I would pay for an independent inspection to prove it was a parts failure, and that they would have to put right the failure and reimburse the inspection fee. Otherwise, had I let them do this themselves I couldn't trust them not to lie - as we have now seen, in writing, from the blatant lies they have told the BVRLA - and are, presumably, going to tell the same to the Financial Ombudsman. As the car was due to go back on the 8th October, I didn't want to pay out a fortune to fix the clutch, without some 'buy in' from the lease company, but after several weeks of chasing them and getting absolutely no response, I took it upon myself to pay to fix the clutch, hoping they would see sense and we could resolve this. It was at this time I raised complaints with the BVRLA and the FO - the FO having recently emailed us to say they have informed Lex of the complaint and that they have 8 weeks to respond in writing. The BVRLA told us they cannot uphold the complaint as Lex told them the clutch failure was due to our driving style - having been informed of this by the repair centre. THAT WAS A LIE. They didn't have the vehicle. And they didn't know who our repair centre was, and that repair centre told us, and wrote on the invoice, that it was due to parts failure. As for the windscreen, it had been crapping down with rain for weeks, so I had to fix this prior to them collection it. Had it have been in the summer, I simply would not have bothered. But I feel I am entitled to the refund for this too, as I have photos from the Autoglass guy that shows the window was never bonded correctly in the first place. Not sure whether I should raise the Simple Procedure now, or wait for the 8 weeks to see if Lex will be in touch. They are in breach of contract already by not responding to certain timescales. And I am certain they will screw this up too... Thoughts?

Hey Bank Fodder - thanks for the response... The BVRLA are the governing body for vehicle rental and leasing. I do think you are right re: the lease company being responsible, but their argument - on the telephone only - they've never responded once in writing or replied to our emails - is that the vehicle is out of warranty. My response is that a modern car, that is only 5 years old, should not have a leaking window - especially when I can prove with photos that it wasn't bonded properly in the first place, and there is a ton of anecdotal evidence in Evoque forums of many owners having had the same faults - both with the leaking windscreen and the flywheel/clutch issue. The fact that Lex have told the the BVRLA that the clutch failed due to driving style is infuriating - they cannot know that without having inspected the vehicle. But, when our repair centre did the clutch repair they found the flywheel had failed and shredded the clutch - clear parts failure, and at only 32k miles - not fit for purpose. Problem, is Lex are not listening or engaging with us. In total, for 3 months refund of payments, for when we had no use of the car, plus the clutch repair and leaking window repair, and the replacement car seat (plus any additional compensation we may be due) it comes to about £4850. In Scotland we would have to use something called a Simple Procedure - effectively the modern equivalent of the Small Claims Court. But I am not sure we will get anywhere with this either. So, I am looking for advice on how best to sort this out, and perhaps, the best way to word any correspondence/claim.

Apologies, in advance, for this lengthy blurb... We have recently returned a Range Rover Evoque to the lease company - Lex Autolease. It should have been returned start of Oct 2020, but the car developed catastrophic faults making this impossible. The car was taken on an initial 4 year lease (8k/year), but extended twice for 2 extra 6 month periods - big mistake! End of Sep 2020, the clutch failed on the car at less than 32k miles. It was recovered to a repair centre and sat outside, pending a reply from the lease company - as it was their responsibility to pay for the clutch repair - after we emailed to complain about the clutch failure. We received an auto reply to the email, so it was received, but they never responded to us - despite several other emails and twice daily phone calls. Fast forward to mid November, I took the decision to pay for the clutch repair, so we could get rid of the car back to the lease company, and recover the costs legally. £3006 - the flywheel had failed and caused the clutch failure. Absolutely not fit for purpose for a modern car to have a flywheel/clutch fail at 32k miles. However, during the time the car had sat outside, in some terrible weather, and had developed a leak in the windscreen, causing a fair bit of water ingress and a huge amount of mould to form. Several phone calls to Lex Autolease later and they kept saying they would get in touch, but to date, they have still not been in touch. They did say that fixing the windscreen was our problem, and given the constant rain we were having at the time, I had to pay for Autoglass to repair this at a cost of some £533. They have given me photos that show the window was not fitted properly in the first place. And have fixed approx 2,500 Evoque windscreens in a 6 month period - they are acutely aware of just how bad these windscreens are. We have since complained to the BVRLA, and the Financial Ombudsman, who have both responded. The FO are saying that Lex has 8 weeks to resolve our complaint in writing. But wasn't clear as to when this 8 week period was to start. Bearing in mind, that it has been 14-15 weeks since we first emailed them about the clutch fault - and that we had no use of the car during all this time, despite continuing to pay the rental agreement. The BVRLA told us they had contacted Lex Autolease, and were told that the repair centre had deemed the clutch failure to be down to our driving style. They lied. They have no access to the report that we received from the repair centre who categorically state that the clutch failed due to a faulty flywheel. I responded to the BVRLA right away - 1 days ago now - and have had no further response from them as yet. So, my questions are these: 1... compensation for the clutch repair, refund of payments during a period where the car was unusable = these should all be repaid by the lease company - correct? 2... compensation for the repair of the windscreen, and for the replacement of a child car seat that was damaged due to mould = these should be repaid by Land Rover - correct? Whilst we didn't rent another vehicle during the approx 3 months we had no use of the Evoque, we were severely disadvantaged as a result. Are we also due any further compensation from the Lease company for their negligence, and potential criminality, in lying about the findings of the repair centre...? NOTE: we are based in Scotland. The vehicle was delivered AFTER 1st October 2015 (Consumer Rights Act), but the lease was signed prior to this (Consumer Credit Act). Any advice forthcoming would be most appreciated.

DX - quick update and question... Still waiting for the lawyer to get me stuff from his archives to send to Cabot. They are still calling, writing, texting, and now, I guess having trawled social media, have called on my business line - a freephone number, no less... Are they allowed to contact people through their place of work? I know the simplest thing is to just send them the absolvitor stuff, and head them off at the pass, but they've really annoyed me now. Is there anything else I can do that would shut them up a bit? Should I send a SAR letter, or FOI request, to find out what info they have on me and where they obtained this info?

I'll have to dig out the paperwork - will take some time, but should be able to find it... nothing bad for me?

may I ask what? Surely a statute barred debt is a statute barred debt, no? or is it down to how I should play it with them?

without going thru tons of paperwork and stuff, I am not sure, to be honest. But I don't think so. Does that make the outcome/course of action different?

I have an old debt - it has been statute barred for a couple of years now. OC was Citi, I think, but they doubled my interest rate overnight, even though I was paying faithfully every month, so I decided to stop paying and challenge validity of the contract. They are now referring to it is 'Opus', and not 'Citi' but I was never informed about a change of name or reassignment of the debt. Cabot started sending letters - first letter stated I had pad £0.24p and it was now time for me to start paying the rest. They are also calling me on my mobile - a number they never had, as I've never had calls from them on this before - I changed my number to avoid their calls. They are also texting. - stating things like 'it has been 14 days and you haven't been in touch' - it was only a few days. When they first called me I answered, from the car, and acknowledged who I was - not thinking I needed to be on my guard, as they should not have had my number, and they've been calling and writing since - been about 2 months now. S trangely, it seems that now every single call ALWAYS goes direct to voicemail - with their usual recorded message. Now they are threatening to send a doorstep collector. I don't mind this - I'll knock him on his back, after pointing out the error of his ways, with respect to The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973... But, I was wondering if I should just let them crack on and waste their time and money, or if I should just head them off at the pass by sending the statute barred letter...? Or whether I should send a SAR to find out how they got my number...? Any advice would be greatly received - many thanks in advance.

Humble apologies DX, et al, I was utterly convinced that I had updated on this at the time... I had to read back the thread to see I hadn't - very remiss of me, sorry... I think I was confusing it with the update/conclusion on my own case... So, regarding my friend's Cap1/Cabot thingy: the account was clearly statute barred, and were told this, but they still pushed for the court date. As such, I attended with my friend, and when the case was called, and I told the Sheriff that it was statute barred, the local solicitor they were using to represent them acknowledged this right away - as though she clearly knew already, but was just pushing forward regardless - and they dropped it without a problem, with the Sheriff shaking her head... Many thanks for all your assistance throughout all of this...

I print high quality prints for photographers and artists, and run a photostudio for photographers to hire, I know how much they supply digital images for. £375 for 5/6 images is vastly inflated. As chr0m4t1c says, you might have an argument based on this. Worth contacting a couple of local photographers (or even just checking websites/facebook pages) to see their rates, as different parts of the country will vary. Most photographers offer way more than 5 images, for a start, and usually charge, on average, £15-20 per digital image. Digital only packages tend to be around £200-300, at the top end, and this is with 20-30 images AND includes the cost of the studio session, which would usually be booked at 2 hours, but could be much longer for a newborn session. It sounds like they are trying to recover the cost of the studio session in your price, as well as vastly inflating the costs of the prints...

DX, sorry - u said 'ring cap 1 and ask' - I assumed u meant about the cabot licence - must have read it as 'ring cabot and ask' - didn't know you were referring to the statute barred status. We were waiting on the SAR to check what info they had for my friend, but as this still hasn't come, a few months down the line, I'm thinking that Capital one don't have anything at all? Should I email Shoosmiths for her, and point out the statute barred status now...?

DX - hope you pick this up (again!) OK, so this recent summary cause I'm helping a friend with. To recap - £4k debt, shoosmiths chasing for cabot, on a capital one debt they have purchased. Friend checked their credit file, and it defaulted JUST over 5 years prior to the summary cause being served, which means she's had no contact with capiltal one (original lender) for 2-3 months prior to this. As such, I'm certain that it is definitely statute barred (Scotland). Anyhoo, we went to court in August, on the original calling date, sat for an hour, before a clerk pulled us aside and said that shoosmiths had asked to sist the case (until this week), but had not contacted my friend to give her any notice of this. Capital one were sent a SAR on 7/7/16 - and have still NOT complied with this. Nor have Shoosmiths been able to turn up the original agreement, in any form. Shoosmiths wrote to her a few weeks after the CCA request, waffling some crap about confirming that 'this matter will be placed on hold until we are able to provide this documentation'. Two weeks later, Cabot, themselves, wrote to her saying they currently did not have the CCA on file, but stated that they requested it from the original lender. Given that capital one, to date, still haven't replied to a SAR, nearly 3 months down the line, I'm guessing this isn't forthcoming. However, Cabot also wrote this in their letter: 'I acknowledge the 12 day time limit to provide this information before the account becomes unenforceable, however, as we have to request the details from the original lender I anticipate that we will be able to provide this within 40 days. In the unlikely event we are unable to obtain this information within those time limits, we will write to you again'. NOTE: the 40 DAYS...? time limit for a SAR? SO, questions are these: they haven't written to say they have the paperwork (I'm guessing their not actually obliged to, but surely, capital one should have been obliged to respond to the SAR, had the paperwork been found?) SO, should we email Shoosmiths, or Cabot, to ask if they will definitely be showing in court this time around (Thursday this week), as taking time off work to attend, for them to simply not turn up as they've requested a further sist, is not acceptable...? And should we point out to them that the agreement, even if they turn up the paperwork, is statute barred, and they are not entitled to take my friend to court for an unenforceable debt? Is there even a template letter for something like this?? Wouldn't the court take a dim view of them doing this, knowing they had no paperwork to proceed with and knowing it was statute barred? (And is statute barred the correct terminology?) Looking forward to your valuable assistance yet again... (ps: I've just been awarded £10K for mis-sold Egg PPI)

DX - hope you pick this - didn't wanna start a new thread, and have read other threads where you commented on this subject, but just wanted a quick answer from you please...? OK, so Cabot Financial (UK) Limited have instructed Shoosmiths to issue a summary cause, for some £4k, to my friend. It is for a credit card debt, and she thinks the debt is statute barred - but she hasn't kept any previous correspondence, and as she can be a bit flakey(!) I'm wanting some extra ammo for her defence of the action... It is a pre 2007 agreement. I have cca-ed Shoosmiths, and they are saying this might take some time - pffft - it is now 3 weeks and nothing. I have sent a SAR to Capital one (original lender) and had nothing yet, but it's only been 2 weeks - only once we have this will I know that the debt is truly statute barred. Anyhoo - Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd - their licence is still showing as lapsed on the FCS website, and I've read conflicting info as to whether this is a defence, or whether they can simply have someone else in their group collect the debt - but what if the summary cause is listed in the name of cabot financial (uk) limited - surely that means it is them collecting the debt, and not another part of their group? As such, is this a reliable defence?