Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.    Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.   The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved.  Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
    • You can use a family's address.   The only caveat is for the final hearing you'd need to be there in person   HOWEVER i'd expect them to pay if its only £200 because costs of attending will be higher than that
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Problem with Peugeot garage


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5160 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

hi everyone newbie here.

 

right heres the situation.

 

Last week an error code came up on my car which is a peugeot 407(4 years old).It was an esp/asr error.

 

On Monday past i took it to the dealership in town where they perfomed a diagnostic test on my vehicle.This test cost £50 but I managed to get it for £40.Anyway the result of this test was inconclusive as they informed me it was angle sensors to the front or to the rear of my vehicle but could not pinpoint exactly where the fault came from.

 

The guy in the garage told me if I wanted to get a proper diagnosis I would have to spend approx £400 for peugeot to get a specialist mechanic to find out the exact cause of the fault.

 

I thought this was strange so I checked up on my payments to peugeot and found out that I was on hire purchase agreement.I spoke with trading standards and they thought that peugeot had to fix my car.Is this true?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarilly. It depends on the warranty supplied with the car if any. Most warranties allow an amount for diagnostics based on what they think is a reasonable amount to diagnose the fault. Some extended warranties refuse to cover diagnostis at all. They just cover the removal and refit of the affected part.

 

Would be interesting if you could post the fault codes they found.

 

Most esp/asr/dsc codes are registered from the ABS sensors and yaw control module so why it needs a specialist at the moment is questionable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarilly. It depends on the warranty supplied with the car if any. Most warranties allow an amount for diagnostics based on what they think is a reasonable amount to diagnose the fault. Some extended warranties refuse to cover diagnostis at all. They just cover the removal and refit of the affected part.

 

Would be interesting if you could post the fault codes they found.

 

Most esp/asr/dsc codes are registered from the ABS sensors and yaw control module so why it needs a specialist at the moment is questionable.

they never showed me the fault codes.all done behind closed doors.i wasn't asked if i wanted to see the diag test being done.:mad:

 

From what i gathered from trading standards the car was peugeots responsibility until i had made my final payment which is in july coming.

Edited by bannblue
Link to post
Share on other sites

Heliosuk, does this story remind you of something?????????? It must be the same computer as Citroen in Coventry.

Here again is yet another example of Technology taken too far and is "OUTWITH NORMAL SERVICE CAPABILITY"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you mention it, it does actually. An inability of the PSA group Product development to understand what they have built and tell the dealers how to fix and service it.

 

I'd love to take my car in to a pug or ****reoen dealer to tell me why my engine MIL light is on and film it for youtube.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bannblue,

 

What TS have told you is wrong. The responsibility of Pug ends at the end of the manufactuers warranty. If you have another warranty this will be an insurance policy against mechanical failure, very different indeed.

 

In any way, the checks they did should have been down loaded and recorded on the job card, purely for audit purposes and to aid diagnosis. Sometimes there are too many to remember and are perhaps nebulous.

 

Just as a matter of intrest, have you changed any tyres lately as this is one of the most common things dealers miss as the systems are that sensitive now an ABS sensor will detect it and that is what all your lights are driven from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bannblue,

 

What TS have told you is wrong. The responsibility of Pug ends at the end of the manufactuers warranty. If you have another warranty this will be an insurance policy against mechanical failure, very different indeed.

 

In any way, the checks they did should have been down loaded and recorded on the job card, purely for audit purposes and to aid diagnosis. Sometimes there are too many to remember and are perhaps nebulous.

 

Just as a matter of intrest, have you changed any tyres lately as this is one of the most common things dealers miss as the systems are that sensitive now an ABS sensor will detect it and that is what all your lights are driven from.

 

 

Thanks for your reply,From reading my hire purchase agreement the car belongs to peugeot until such times as it is paid off which is in july but i will take your word for it.

 

I am currently not working at present so cannot afford to pay those twits £ 400 and I intend to trade the car in anyway as it's a pile of scrap and I personally wouldn't go near peugeot again.

 

No I haven't had tyres changed.The only thing I got done was ball joints replaced last year which I am led to beleive should have been done by pug by recalling the peugeot 407 but due to their greed this wasn't done.

 

I will never buy Peugeot again or french car for that matter.:mad:

Edited by bannblue
Link to post
Share on other sites

The agreement you have is to finance the car through Pug I reckon. This does not include the warranty.

 

This needs clarification. What finance agreement, Pug to buy the car, Pug contact/lease hire, Pug options scheme???

Link to post
Share on other sites

The agreement you have is to finance the car through Pug I reckon. This does not include the warranty.

 

This needs clarification. What finance agreement, Pug to buy the car, Pug contact/lease hire, Pug options scheme???

 

Peugeot finance is what i was told when i first bought the car,then when i phoned them the other day they told me it was a hire purchase agreement.

 

I have made a complaint to peugeot ref the circumstances and they are due to get back to me next monday with reference to who pays for the repair etc.

 

I have the agreement that i signed in front of me,no mention of hire purchase or peugeot finance just stating conditional sale agreement regulated by consumer credit act etc etc.They seem to me to be hidden in the way they do things and the documents they supply you with.

 

I am sick to the back teeth with these people and will never have anything to do with them again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate that you bought the latest 407 PUG. I too am having great trouble with citroen uk. a sister company.

It's a bit unfair to say bad things about a brand, as the previous models, in both our cases, were very fine cars indeed. The 405 & 406 diesel estates were excellent vehicles, and capable of high, trouble free milages, coupled with outstanding economy.

Part of todays unsatisfactory customer service, apart from the recession, is that manufacturers are having to spend mega bucks in meeting these ludicrous EU Regulations, which seem to be absorbing much of their resources.

It's times we dumped this EU outfit, and turned the clock back, until such times that the correct technology is in place to move forward without all these unsolvable problems.

Why manufacture something if you can't control it???

I'm sure if you bought an old PUG you would be highly delighted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate that you bought the latest 407 PUG. I too am having great trouble with citroen uk. a sister company.

It's a bit unfair to say bad things about a brand, as the previous models, in both our cases, were very fine cars indeed. The 405 & 406 diesel estates were excellent vehicles, and capable of high, trouble free milages, coupled with outstanding economy.

Part of todays unsatisfactory customer service, apart from the recession, is that manufacturers are having to spend mega bucks in meeting these ludicrous EU Regulations, which seem to be absorbing much of their resources.

It's times we dumped this EU outfit, and turned the clock back, until such times that the correct technology is in place to move forward without all these unsolvable problems.

Why manufacture something if you can't control it???

I'm sure if you bought an old PUG you would be highly delighted.

 

Don't get me wrong ,the best car i ever had was the peugeot 406 which i bought off the same garage.give me no problems at all.it's all these new electronic things and the ways of testing them and their failure to diagnose correctly what the fault is.

 

I was also under the impression that a dealership had to find out the fault not for me to pay for them to do it.then after finding the fault they could give me an estimated bill for repair.it's the underhand way in which they do things now that infuriates me and the extortionate prices.

Edited by bannblue
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have spoken with a legal adviser who states quite clearly that under the sale of goods act 1979 that the vehicle is of satisfactory quality and under my terms and agreement the onus is on the finance company to repair my fault as it is an inherent fault ie not done by wear and tear of the vehicle.the finacial ombudsman has also been informed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have spoken with a legal adviser who states quite clearly that under the sale of goods act 1979 that the vehicle is of satisfactory quality and under my terms and agreement the onus is on the finance company to repair my fault as it is an inherent fault ie not done by wear and tear of the vehicle.the finacial ombudsman has also been informed.

Subbing as I have a similar problem with a Peugeot 107 which peugeot are claiming isn't covered under the warranty.

It's clear that some Peugeot vehicles are unfit for purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subbing as I have a similar problem with a Peugeot 107 which peugeot are claiming isn't covered under the warranty.

It's clear that some Peugeot vehicles are unfit for purpose.

 

I would say most are unfit for purpose.i recently spoke with a fella who works for peugeot as a salesman and he told me that the engines were fine but that the diagnostics tool was rubbish as was the electronics in the car.I will never have another peugeot,thats for sure.:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have spoken with a legal adviser who states quite clearly that under the sale of goods act 1979 that the vehicle is of satisfactory quality and under my terms and agreement the onus is on the finance company to repair my fault as it is an inherent fault ie not done by wear and tear of the vehicle.the finacial ombudsman has also been informed.

 

Perhaps you could answer post #8 which will enable us to determine exactly what is what because if you have given the legal advisor the information you posted here you could well find yourself very dissapointed and embarassed.

 

In relation to subbings comment about the diagnostics, it's not usually the diagnostics that are crap it's the people employed to use them.

 

In fact, the diagnostics are usually so good, current technicians don't understand what they tell you and that is where the problem lies. The onus is on the dealer to train the technicians and they just don't as this is a cost to them but they don't calculate the knock on effect on customer service. Conversley, the manufacturer expects them to be fully trained and up to speed and this does not just apply to technicians but sales people as well.

 

The trade pays peanuts to these guys and they get monkeys.

 

Another reason why this industry needs regulation and licensing!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The agreement you have is to finance the car through Pug I reckon. This does not include the warranty.

 

This needs clarification. What finance agreement, Pug to buy the car, Pug contact/lease hire, Pug options scheme???

conditional sale under the consumer credit act 1974.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case you need to treat like a personal loan from the bank. The Finance co have lent you the money to buy it. So Pug finance, which is probably a French Bank like Credit Agicole have no legal obligations as regards the fault. Essentially you have a bank loan in simple terms.

 

So can you tell us what the warranty is you understand you have, was the car bought new, used or what?

 

Does the service book have a full history and on time and on mileage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case you need to treat like a personal loan from the bank. The Finance co have lent you the money to buy it. So Pug finance, which is probably a French Bank like Credit Agicole have no legal obligations as regards the fault. Essentially you have a bank loan in simple terms.

 

So can you tell us what the warranty is you understand you have, was the car bought new, used or what?

 

Does the service book have a full history and on time and on mileage?

 

I bought the car new, 4 1/2 years ago with a 3 year warranty.i took my car to different mechanics for service etc.I don't know where the service book is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, say now we are clear ast to what is going on. On the basis of what you have said, I would think that you didn't take up the option of extending the "manufacturerswarranty" which is essentially the same as a used car warranty, which is not a warranty but an insurance policy against mechanical breakdown and as such also has conditions.

 

So we need to work out what has gone wrong and how to get around it.

 

Forget any claim against Pug or the finance co unless it's possible to provethat this is a common issue and subject to an "Pergouet service campaign". This should have been picked up when they looked at it and the diagnostics would have alerted them to it.

 

You need to ask for the fault codes from the job card. If not available then look under the bonnet and look for silver boxes and let me know the name on it.

 

Unless anyone can throw any light on it here, we need to know which manufactureres system its running on. Bosch is popular, Valeo or Delphi another. Unlikely to be Magnetti Marreli.

 

Worth a post on the Pug forums to find out what is what.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, say now we are clear ast to what is going on. On the basis of what you have said, I would think that you didn't take up the option of extending the "manufacturerswarranty" which is essentially the same as a used car warranty, which is not a warranty but an insurance policy against mechanical breakdown and as such also has conditions.

 

So we need to work out what has gone wrong and how to get around it.

 

Forget any claim against Pug or the finance co unless it's possible to provethat this is a common issue and subject to an "Pergouet service campaign". This should have been picked up when they looked at it and the diagnostics would have alerted them to it.

 

You need to ask for the fault codes from the job card. If not available then look under the bonnet and look for silver boxes and let me know the name on it.

 

Unless anyone can throw any light on it here, we need to know which manufactureres system its running on. Bosch is popular, Valeo or Delphi another. Unlikely to be Magnetti Marreli.

 

Worth a post on the Pug forums to find out what is what.

ok i will try and find out re the boxes.I didnt take out any additional cover.my head is spinning at the minute with people telling me one thing then somebody else telling me something completely different but i do appreciate your input.the financial ombudsman should know.

Edited by bannblue
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's often the problem on this forum bannblue. There are those who know and there are people who think they know.

 

Often you see the SOGA rules being shouted and six year rule but this is the top end of the law only. When you dig down to individual cases and case law it comes unstuck.

 

Lawyers can argue the case till the cows come home but it does not fix the predicament you are in.

 

You need the quickest possible fix at the least cost to you is how I now read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's often the problem on this forum bannblue. There are those who know and there are people who think they know.

 

Often you see the SOGA rules being shouted and six year rule but this is the top end of the law only. When you dig down to individual cases and case law it comes unstuck.

 

Lawyers can argue the case till the cows come home but it does not fix the predicament you are in.

 

You need the quickest possible fix at the least cost to you is how I now read it.

 

true enough but if no quick fix comes soon and it isn't sorted i will take the hit on it as i intend to trade the car in soon anyway,but yes i would prefer to trade it in fixed of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...