Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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

Sold an unsafe car


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2538 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,

 

June last year we decided to update my wife's car, And so she looked on Autotrader to find the car that she wanted

 

She settled on a 2 year old Toyota Yaris that had to have exact specifications, Built in Sat Nav, Reverse camera ect, We found the exact car including the colour that she wanted, But it was quite away away, We are in Leicester, The car was in Cambridge at a main dealers

 

We drove over there, She had a test drive and loved it so we decided to buy it, It would take almost a week to do a full car check, Plus some Diamond bright thing to the paint work

 

We went back to pick it up, And it has been a great car since, She loves it

 

Fast forward to 7 weeks ago it was coming up to needing it's first MOT, So we booked it in and when we went to pick it up, It had failed because the brake reservoir cap was missing and an old rubber glove had been shoved in to the top of it

 

I was furious, My wife had been driving around in a car that as far as i was concerned, Could have killed her at anytime, A car that we paid a lot of money for from a reputable company

 

I rang the company up and spoke to their Senior Services Advisor and he told me to put my complaint in writing, So i did and he seemed a really nice bloke who took it very seriously

 

After a few emails he finally sent this email

 

Good morning Mr *******

 

I am glad everything is now ok with the vehicle. I have had a chat with my Head of Business, as well as the invoice for the repair. If you would like to take your family out for dinner wherever you like and send me the receipt up to £200.00. We would like to get that paid for you as well.

 

Thank you very much for the compliment, If there anything else you need in the future please do not hesitate to ask. I am always here to help.

 

kind regards

 

 

Matthew Nightingale

Senior Service Advisor Toyota and Lexus Cambridge

 

Steven Eagell Toyota and Lexus Cambridge

1 Norman Way

Coldhams Business Park

Coldhams Lane

Cambridge

CB1 3LH

 

 

 

 

So i sent invoices and a receipt for the meal, Only £41.50 of the up to £200 that they offered, Total less than £70

 

That was 7 weeks ago and have not heard anything from them since, I have sent an email last week, But have totally been ignored

 

So my question is, Should i just forget about it, Trash them on Social media, Or does anyone have a suggestion

Edited by dx100uk
name removed ...opps - dx
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have been driving around since June without a cap on the brake fluid reservoir?

 

I think you need to take a look at yourselves and make sure you are doing your daily and weekly checks correctly.

One of the things to check is that all caps are present and correctly fitted.

Not only are you putting your own lives at risk, but those of the other road users too.

 

Back to the compensation issue,

I am firstly very surprised they offered that resolution but hats off to them for not just brushing you off.

 

Secondly,

I would resend the email and give them a ring to check they have received it.

A new email sender that also sends attachments is very likely to get kicked into touch by a commercial firewall or spam filter.

A quick phone call ten mins after sending the email will help them find it.

Chances are, it would then be paid.

 

I wouldn't go slagging the off on social media,

you have no proof it is their fault and could likely be classed as libel.

 

 

The non payment of the compensation could just be an admin error that is easily sorted and would disappear completely should they be dissed on social media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as above..you drove around for a year and never checked even the basics like enough brake fluid even once...scary...

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a 2 year old car with full service history from a respectable dealer, It has only done 1500 in the time she has had it, I have to say, I never noticed it

 

It wouldn't have been so bad if it was me driving it, It was my wife

 

In previous emails he accepted that we had received the car with the cap missing and had implemented changes into their systems

 

I feel let down, We paid £7.500 for a "quality" car from a quality garage, They held their hands up and made a generous offer, Then have blown us off since

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems like it was done to shut you up...

 

 

I would suspect they are on facebook etc

poss a message there?

might embarrass them into remembering...

 

 

or even twitter feed of Toyota?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes they are @steveneagell

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a 2 year old car with full service history from a respectable dealer, It has only done 1500 in the time she has had it, I have to say, I never noticed it

 

It wouldn't have been so bad if it was me driving it, It was my wife

 

In previous emails he accepted that we had received the car with the cap missing and had implemented changes into their systems

 

I feel let down, We paid £7.500 for a "quality" car from a quality garage, They held their hands up and made a generous offer, Then have blown us off since

 

Did they actually admit to selling the car without a cap? Did they actually write that?

Or did they just offer the money as a gesture of goodwill?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's fine. New procedures in place to make sure no cars leave like that, but they will have stopped short of actually admitting fault for yours.

I would just have a quick phone call, recorded, to check they have you email. Hopefully its just an admin thing and this can all be over.

Next, I'd buy your partner a Haynes manual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't really care about the money, Its less than £70,

What i care about is people doing what they say they are going to do, If you don't mean it, Don't say it

 

When you buy a car that is only 2 years into its 5 year manufacturers warranty,

You don't expect to have to go beyond checking oil and water levels,

Beyond that, That is what servicing and MOT are for

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I fully agree on the part that they should do as they say.

 

But regardless of age, just water and oil levels is pure stupity when driving a 2 ton lump of metal which can kill.

Basic checks are levels and security in the engine bay. Brake, steering and gear checks. Tyres and rims. And visual check underneath. That is a daily check and for those that dont do it, shame on you.

 

The five year warranty has nothing to do with any of that. If something is found amis, then warranty may cover it as far as the repair goes, but it is the DRIVERS responsibility to check the car is safe for daily driving.

No, the servicing is there to replace worn serviceable parts and oils.

The MOT is a legal requirement as it checks certain properties about a car that the driver cannot like bearings and rubbers. However, the mot will fail you for obvious defects that should have been picked up by the driver like bulbs, tyres etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...