Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Dodgy MOT judgement


Him over there
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4843 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

I have just come back from Kwik-Fit who have failed my car's MOT. Their reasoning was that the passenger side tyre tread was below 1.6mm. I explained that the car had been serviced by a main dealer only 2 weeks ago and they made no mention of this. (They have in the past and always record tread depth on the service documents. They said "We can sell you a new tyre". This really got my blood going as it appeared to be legalised daylight robbery. On returning home I have tried to find an area on the tyre with less than 2mm but to no avail. My first set of tyres on the car lasted for 40.000 miles; according to Kwik-Fit these ones have only lasted 19,000.

 

I know I have been ripped off and have challenged them but they are adamant that they are right.

 

Does anyone know of a good (legal) course of action.

 

I will not simply roll over and take this sort of treatment.

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just come back from Kwik-Fit who have failed my car's MOT. Their reasoning was that the passenger side tyre tread was below 1.6mm. I explained that the car had been serviced by a main dealer only 2 weeks ago and they made no mention of this. (They have in the past and always record tread depth on the service documents. They said "We can sell you a new tyre". This really got my blood going as it appeared to be legalised daylight robbery. On returning home I have tried to find an area on the tyre with less than 2mm but to no avail. My first set of tyres on the car lasted for 40.000 miles; according to Kwik-Fit these ones have only lasted 19,000.

 

I know I have been ripped off and have challenged them but they are adamant that they are right.

 

Does anyone know of a good (legal) course of action.

 

I will not simply roll over and take this sort of treatment.

 

Cheers,

 

It is possible to appeal the MOT by completeing a VT17 form and getting it to VOSA within 14 days of the failed test. the only thing is you will need to send them a full test fee (which you may not get a full refund of) and you can''t have any work done on the vehicle before they re-test it as they need to see it in the condition it was failed.

 

Direct Gov has a bit more information and a downloadable copy of the form you would need. It also has a number you can call to give VOSA feedback on the service you received.

 

Beyond the above, I am not sure that there is another way to apeal it. You might be able to get a test elsewhere and if it passes go back to quick fit and complain.

 

I suppose that if another station or VOSA retest and pass the vehicle then it could be infered that the garage failed your car so that they could "encourage" you to buy their goods. This could be taken as acting fraudulently (by abusing a statutory process for personal gain) or trading in a "unfair" manner under CPUTR.

 

Thanks,

H

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...