Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Dealer Requesting More Money for PX, 3 months following purchase of New Vehicle


Ajr3773
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2286 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

Long story short,

 

18 yr old son purchased a brand new car in October and as part of the deal the dealer offered him £2300 for his PX without seeing the car but I assume they ran a valuation on it and HPI check etc at time of quoting the PX figures etc.....

 

This week my son has just received an email and recorded letter from the dealership headed final before legal requesting he pays £500 to the dealership as the PX only fetched £1800 at auction as a consequence of the car having apparently been written off under Cat D damage that my son had no knowledge of having bought the PX privately about 18 months ago.

 

Surely the dealership has no grounds for redress given that they would of been aware of the cars history when they provided us with the PX price? Secondly had the car fetched more than £2300 at auction would they be writing to me to say they they owe me the difference over and above the PX valuation? I somewhat highly doubt it.

 

They are saying my son signed to say the PX had not been involved in any accidents and was not subject to outstanding finance or being written off but he genuinely didn’t know that the vehicle has been previously written off as damaged but repairable.

 

Can anyone offer advice as surely the purchase was concluded back in October and the PX provided by the dealership is a risk that all dealers / traders take especially as the car ended up going to auction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

something doesn't sound right here that's for sure.

 

I bet the letter doesn't say will anywhere

can you scan it up to PDF please

read upload

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

Here’s the content of their letter;

 

This letter is our final request for you to make payment towards the sale by auction of your part exchange used in the purchase of SEAT LEON XxxxxxX.

 

We bought the vehicle in good faith from you as part of the concluding sale of the SEAT LEON.

 

You signed to confirm, both on our purchase invoice and on the order form that the vehicle Toyota Iq2 XxxxxX had not been involved in any accident resulting in a Total Loss Claim.

 

The vehicle as listed and received is in fact a total loss vehicle (Information supplied by Experian HPI).

Therefore, the information you signed and gave us was in fact incorrect.

 

Due to the incorrect information both verbally and written given by yourself, the vehicle was valued above its actual worth.

 

We valued the vehicle as described at £2300.

 

When given the Total Loss Claim the actual monies received via auction were £1800.

 

We request that you pay us the difference of £500 in the next 7 days to prevent further action.

 

By further action I mean, collection via the County Court where charges will also apply.

 

Please contact me on the number or email above to arrange for payment or if you required any proofs,

 

i.e. HPI check, Purchase Invoice, Receipt of Funds from the Auction House.

 

Yours sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a similar thread here not long ago, can't find it now.

 

The advice given on that was the information given that the vehicle had not been involved in any previous accident/write off was given in good faith and was true to the best of your knowledge and belief.

 

You have no knowledge of any such accident/write-off and you could not disclose what you did not know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By further action I mean, collection via the County Court where charges will also apply.

 

the county court doesn't do collection.... powerless debt collectors do though!!

 

what was the title of the letter?

 

 

ignore the muppet

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

final notice before what action?

 

then that's not a letter of claim nor a letter before action.

 

just his mate down the pub saying send this I bet they'll wet themselves

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

A dealer accepting part exchange without doing an hpi check...

Tells a lot about how professional they are.

Get hold of the paperwork your son signed and you'll find that it says something like "...the information supplied are correct to the best of my knowledge".

End of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can just imagine if this was the other way round.

 

I guess the owner of the car would just suck it up if the car he bought from the dealer turned out to be on the register?

 

Only one side of the story is presented here yet people weigh in with absolute certitude.

 

You are surely aware that it is only ever 'good practice' for vehicles to have markers against them on HPI/Experian, you do all know that dont you?

That is why there is insurance on every check against inaccuracies.

There is no law saying that a car on the register or having finance against it must show up on a data check.

As mentioned it is only ever described as good practice to add this information to the database.

 

In my experience dealers use HPI/Experian to get the vehicles valuation as it saves doing 2 checks (one for valuation and one for adverse data).

So they may well have done a data check which came back clear.

 

The guys son made a declaration stating that his car was free from encumbrance and was not on the register,

if he was not sure he should not have answered in the negative in that instance.

 

I know this as i once had to pay for a car again several months after i bought it.

As i was on the phone with Experian asking why the finance did not show

they added it to the report before my eyes and the company i bought the car from had gone out of business.

 

As with most things, a little bit of knowledge is dangerous,

please think before giving advice.

 

Cars are an emotive subject as a lot of men think they know everything there is to know!

It is like me thinking i can practice medicine after going to the doctors once or twice.

 

Your son stitched up the garage and they are SOL,

probably an innocent and hard working family business too.

But hey, well done you

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Your son stitched up the garage and they are SOL,

probably an innocent and hard working family business too.

But hey, well done you

 

OP said his son bought the car privately 18 months ago and had no knowledge of any previous write off. You've simply asserted on zero evidence that this is a lie and the son knew it was a write off and stitched up the garage. Unless you have evidence for that assertion your contribution is not very helpful to OP or anyone else. (What does SOL mean, by the way?)

 

I don't think OP should ignore the garage's claim but should first ask for a copy of his son's statement/document to the garage about the vehicle's condition and history and post it up here (with identifying details removed).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening all,

 

Once again another idiot joins a forum and offers no assistance whatsoever.

 

Today I have received a copy of the HPI check from the dealer dated September 2017 and it did indeed show the vehicle was a total loss previously but damaged repairable. The valuation in September showed the vehicle as a minimum value of £2400 given what was established during this check so the dealer offered £100 less than book.

 

My case in argument now is that the valuation was based on what they knew from the start. This hasn’t just presented itself when the car went off to auction.

 

In my opinion no redress should be payable and if need be I would go to court over this as their HPI check and subsequent valuation is time and date stamped prior to the conclusion of the contract.

 

In other words someone in the dealership has cocked up on this one because to the best of our knowledge as the car was purchased privately we knew nothing of any previous damage or total loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can just imagine if this was the other way round.

 

I guess the owner of the car would just suck it up if the car he bought from the dealer turned out to be on the register?

 

Only one side of the story is presented here yet people weigh in with absolute certitude.

 

You are surely aware that it is only ever 'good practice' for vehicles to have markers against them on HPI/Experian, you do all know that dont you?

That is why there is insurance on every check against inaccuracies.

There is no law saying that a car on the register or having finance against it must show up on a data check.

As mentioned it is only ever described as good practice to add this information to the database.

 

In my experience dealers use HPI/Experian to get the vehicles valuation as it saves doing 2 checks (one for valuation and one for adverse data).

So they may well have done a data check which came back clear.

 

The guys son made a declaration stating that his car was free from encumbrance and was not on the register,

if he was not sure he should not have answered in the negative in that instance.

 

I know this as i once had to pay for a car again several months after i bought it.

As i was on the phone with Experian asking why the finance did not show

they added it to the report before my eyes and the company i bought the car from had gone out of business.

 

As with most things, a little bit of knowledge is dangerous,

please think before giving advice.

 

Cars are an emotive subject as a lot of men think they know everything there is to know!

It is like me thinking i can practice medicine after going to the doctors once or twice.

 

Your son stitched up the garage and they are SOL,

probably an innocent and hard working family business too.

But hey, well done you

 

What planet did you emerge from???

 

Looking at your comments it would appear you work and side for the franchise dealer in question and also have no idea about legislation.

The dealer knew all about the issue when they offered their PX valuation and nor did they share this.

 

They too have also signed a contract at handover and only now some 3 months following conclusion of the sale do they come chasing my son for a shortfall following sale at auction.

 

Would they be calling me to offer a refund had the car fetched more at Auction.

 

I think not!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

good post!!

 

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

Can I ask a general question on this.

 

As seen as when you take out insurance and the son knowingly or unknowingly insures the car,

surely the insurance company,

as seen as they share info between company's,

should of known that the car had been written off and a payout had been made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a long time since I had anything to do with accident damaged repairable cars,

but at that time I'm sure there was something on the log book to indicate a write off situation.

 

I just can't comprehend this post as it could mean that ANY car which failed to reach trade in price at auction was the subject of claim against the previous owner !!!!

 

If dealer didn't know it was a CAT C car, how did people at auction know ????

Link to post
Share on other sites

due diligence.

 

Your son is obliged to tell the dealership the truth

so if he didnt know about the vehicle being a Cat C write off

then he wasdnt lying to them,

it was his best knowledge and belief.

 

The dealership are professional car buyers and sellers,

they take risk whenevr they buy a vehicle form whatever the source

and the law doesnt allow them to change their minds 3 months later,

they have the advantage they can write it down for tax purposes if they are selling it at a loss.

 

A person collects stamps.

He buys a stamp that is rare and costs him a fortune.

 

Later on he finds out that someone has found a book full of these stamps in a cellar somewhere so his stamp has lost a lage proportion of its value.

The person selling him the stamp didnt know this so can the collector now sue the seller because the stamp is worth less then he originally thought?

 

The dealership were not obliged to offer anything for the car, it was their choice.

Will they win a claim against the OP's son?

almost certainly not.

 

He could call their bluff and say well then I will have my old car back and you can have the new one back and you owe me lost of money and see if they leap at that business opportunity.

 

Nah, someone got a bollocking from HO fro being sloppy and now they are trying it on to ease their own guilt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...