Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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

Unauthorised work done on my car***Settled at ADR Mediation***


robj1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2116 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

My cars brakes failed, brake fluid pouring from one of the front wheels.

 

Took it into the nearest garage, a little back street place.

 

I asked him to take a look at the car and let me know what was wrong. He said it might not be until tomorrow. I agreed that wasn't an issue.

 

That evening he phoned me saying it was fixed and £600. He had replaced all the brakes on the car and a caliper. Apparently the caliper was at fault, and the brakes needed doing.

 

The rear brakes were completely replaced 7k miles ago and were fine. The front discs were lightly corroded but not worn and passed an MOT 2k miles ago fine.

 

To get my car back I paid on my debit card, refused to sign any paperwork, and told him I was reporting him to trading standards.

 

I have since contacted him in writing requesting a partial refund, offering to pay all parts at cost and 1.5 hours labour for the bit that did need doing.

He has refused.

He has also refused to demonstrate how much he paid for the parts for my car.

 

He did tell me he got the parts from eurocarparts, so I can see he has added 100% markup on the price of the parts as well.

 

No work was approved at all, however how do I prove this.

Where do I go from here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you might have a struggle here. It would be possible to defend on the instructions you gave which are vague at present. What did you tell the garage, what car etc etc? For example if you just said I need the brakes fixing please put it right is a difference to instructing Please fix the leaking caliper.

 

 

 

 

In addition you need to be more specific as to the car, age and mileage.

 

 

At the moment I think you are peeing in the wind unless you give more detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Car is worth about 6k, is 8 years old, and the back brakes were recently replaced with evidence.

 

My only instruction to the garage was to "have a look at it for me". My phone number was taken, and I was told he might not be able to look that day, it might be the next.

 

Brake fuild was leaking front the front off side wheel area (hose or caliper).

 

He took my phone number and said he would have a look.

 

He replaced the brakes, pads and discs, front and back and a caliper.

 

I don't disagree the caliper needed doing to be able to drive the car again - he didn't request permission however it could be assumed that permission was given for the caliper as the car couldn't have been driven elsewhere. No quote or estimate was provided to give options.

 

At no point did I think he would touch the rear brakes, let alone completely replace them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the very rare occasions i go to a garage for anything I record the conversation and tell them specifically not to fix anything before giving me a price.

I usually add that I'm skint, so they know that they won't have much to squeeze out of me if they did any work.

Got almost screwed by Toyota once for 2K on an 18 month old car with less than 10k miles on the clock.

Learnt a lesson!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think you will have difficulty in pursuing this. You asked him to fix the leak ( so you say) but he also has a duty of care before he releases the car after repairing the braking system. It's your opinion that the rear brakes needed no work as you presumably assume the rears had been done. By authorising the front caliper work sort of admits you don't understand cars which is to be expected.

 

 

"The rear brakes were completely replaced 7k miles ago and were fine. The front discs were lightly corroded but not worn and passed an MOT 2k miles ago fine". Do you have proof?

 

 

MOT only checks for leaks and efficiency along with general condition. They do not measure thickness etc. Garages do.

 

 

If you go to court on this I honestly think you have too many open holes which can be challenged quite easily at the moment from what you have so far posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think you will have difficulty in pursuing this. You asked him to fix the leak ( so you say) but he also has a duty of care before he releases the car after repairing the braking system. It's your opinion that the rear brakes needed no work as you presumably assume the rears had been done. By authorising the front caliper work sort of admits you don't understand cars which is to be expected.

 

 

"The rear brakes were completely replaced 7k miles ago and were fine. The front discs were lightly corroded but not worn and passed an MOT 2k miles ago fine". Do you have proof?

 

 

MOT only checks for leaks and efficiency along with general condition. They do not measure thickness etc. Garages do.

 

 

If you go to court on this I honestly think you have too many open holes which can be challenged quite easily at the moment from what you have so far posted.

 

Hello, thank you for the reply.

 

When I took the car in, I asked them to look at the car. At no point did I ask for anything to be fixed.

 

They garage admit they did not have permission to work on the car and have verbally apologied for this.

 

I have proof of the MOT and this was done at Kwikfit who if at all possible try to sell you brakes.

 

I do know a reasonable amount about cars, I look after my cars well. In this case I was suited and booted and couldn't take the car far due to lack of brakes. I was about 4 miles from home so just took it to the nearest garage.

 

On dropping it off he confirmed he would 'have a look and let me know' it wasn't till that evening that I got a call saying it would be 620 quid - that was the first contact since dropping the car off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's fair enough! I wouldn't trust Kwikfit who like you say try to sell most unnecessary things and are in general incompetent. They have their own sticky here or used to. I think you have to balance the cost of the work against your or you and your passengers lives. If the bill was only £620 for what they have done then on balance you've probably had a result. However we don't know what car, age or mileage.

 

 

On an MOT they will estimate the brake wear, nothing is measured. For example, with most manufacturers there are specifications issued to service departments about brake thickness and minimum standards. If on a service the brake discs are measured and the disc thickness is specified as a minimum of 20.25mm and the reading is 20mm then they have to be changed, if it measured 20.3 then they should remain. MOT stations cannot do this so have to rely on estimates.

 

 

As with all MOT's the result is only valid at the time of the test and standards vary between test centres anyway as is a subjective test and does not rely on objective data.

 

 

I think only balance, whilst it's a bit difficult to understand, I would say the repairing garage has probably done you a favour here as at some point you'd have had to shell out the money anyway. The fact they have apologised is a lessons learnt for them.

 

 

If you did pursuit it then conversely they would be within their rights to remove the parts less wear and tear allowance. This is often forgotten where legal action is suggested. You've had the benefit of the new parts so you'd only be entitled to a refund of the labour cost for fitting the parts.

 

 

Whenever you take a car for service or repair it's imperative a job card is raised detailing what you require when you arrive at the service centre. This is actually a legal requirement or was many moons ago. It stops any misunderstandings like this.

 

 

Hope this helps!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you - the car is a 4x4, its on 80k miles and is worth about £6-7k and is 9 years old.

 

The first set of rear discs were replaced at 73k miles and had a reasonable amount of life left, but the pad needed changing (for the second time) at this mileage so both were replaced together.

 

I am unsure why you think the garage did me a favour changing the back disc and pads again, when history shows the pads were probably 80% as new and disks 90% as new - can you explain better, maybe I am not understanding.

 

I understand why they decided the change the front pads and discs while replacing the faulty caliper - I don't however understand why they didn't phone to check first. I really don't understand why or how they thought changing the rear pads and discs was acceptable or reasonable.

 

This money was a lot for me to have to pay out, especially as I feel its added no benefit to the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit unsure of your statement: The first set of rear discs were replaced at 73k miles and had a reasonable amount of life left, but the pad needed changing (for the second time) at this mileage so both were replaced together.

 

 

When changing pads you do them in axle sets, both on left and right. The same follows with discs, with new discs go new pads in an axle set. However in your case something does seem a little odd. From the way you describe it and this is the statement I'm having a little difficulty with:

 

 

"The first set of rear discs were replaced at 73k miles and had a reasonable amount of life left, but the pad needed changing (for the second time) at this mileage so both were replaced together."

 

 

Are you saying that now at 80K miles you are on your 3rd set of pads?

 

 

Based on what you say so far it would suggest the rear brakes pads and discs were replaced unnecessarily and indeed you should have been told/called before with an explanation why and left the decision with you.

However just bear in mind what I've pointed out in that the garage can legally remove the parts less benefit afforded and you have to defend that provided they can replace with the original parts supplied.. Now thats's going to be difficult for them .

 

 

I think you have a few options here:

1. Go all out which I think will get you nowhere. The garage could insist in their defence they have complied with the request from you as there is no signed job card.

2. Based on what you have posted here ask them to remove and refund the labour charge based on the fact you have the benefit of the new parts.

3. Follow the sue grabbit and run brigade and perhaps end up with nothing???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - Yes, I understand they are replaced in axle sets, maybe I wasn't clear.

 

Rear Axle

approx. 35k miles rear pads replaced

approx. 73k miles rear pads replaced (discs probably would have lasted another 35k miles so replaced at the same time as pads

approx. 80k miles rear pads and discs replaced by the garage in question.

 

The garage is located in a very wealthy area and I suspect this type of up-selling of work is very much common place and not usually questioned.

 

My first communication with the garage was saying I was will to pay for all the parts at cost, but only half the labour - this they refused.

 

They have also refused to prove to me how much they paid for the replacement parts.

 

I am not trying to get something for free, I am trying not to get ripped off and hopefully make the garage think prior to doing it to the next customer.

 

They are not responding to future communication, so it looks like this will go to small claims.

 

Lets try that again without the errors!! sorry typing fast as in work:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think your first communication was more than fair and you should use this as part of your claim. You offered a fair settlement, in fact more than fair. I'd go for it but it will be a long and drawn out process. Your key point is that there is no signed job card which is a legal requirement!! ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it is. From a manufactures point of view it's a requirement that any job card for warranty is signed by both the customer and approved dealer rep. I think this will boil down to what was said at the time so if you said I have a brake problem and I need them fixed to what they found and what they did. As before, you seemed to have offered a half way point but had a legal job card been there then it's black and white. At the moment it will be their word against theirs!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The small claims papers were issues, the trader left it to the 11th hour and declined the claim saying I asked him to fix the brakes.

 

This is a categoric lie, and the first time he has said this. All previous email correspondence he has never said this. When meeting with him to discuss he offered an apology for not contacting me and gaining approval for the work to be completed.

 

Looks like this will be going to court!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who works with Barristers and has had my case and all evidence reviewed by a Barrister, it's looking 90%+ in my favour for a full pay out.

 

I would have preferred to come to an agreement with the company prior to court as the chances of me bumping into the guy locally is high and I don't want bad feelings - with costs, this could be more than the total of the work!

 

The company has acccepted mediation now, so we need to get through that and if nothing is settled during that, it will be going to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You stated in post#21 the trader declined the claim...you mean he submitted a defence ....must have if its gone to mediation/allocation ?

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You stated in post#21 the trader declined the claim...you mean he submitted a defence ....must have if its gone to mediation/allocation ?

 

Andy

 

Hi, yes sorry, he has submitted a defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...