Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • 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
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • 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.
  • 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 refuses refund after failed repair attempts


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2168 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, looking for some help please.

 

Me and my wife purchased a Peugeot 207 on the 29/1/18 from a New and Used car dealer in Saxmundum near Ipswich

 

.It was advertised on ebay as spares or repair so we contacted them to find out what problems it had, the dealer said we just put that on the advert as it has no warranty and selling on behalf of a customer, but it just needs 2 new tyres!

 

After having the car for a few days we noticed something odd when accelerating from a cold start, the revs appear to drop for a second or so then go back to normal.

 

We took the car back to the dealer and they said they could not find anything wrong as ECU did not show any errors !

 

After a another week we took it back telling them it was dangerous to move off from junctions if revs die, they still said nothing wrong and even blamed our driving as it has a electric clutch, but they replaced a hose as said was slightly split, but appear to make no difference.

 

We now find it has a gearbox oil leak, we took it in on the 31/03/18 to have this repaired, on collection the dealer said he thought it was the clutch housing so they put mastic around it to stop the leak, he said may not last and would cost £500 to fix.

 

Of course the oil leak is still present and have now lost patience with them and asking for a full refund which he has refused and said any further work will be chargeable.

I plan to send the letter below with photos of the oil leak:

 

Complaint about faulty goods

 

On 29/01/2018 we purchased and took delivery of a used Peugeot 207 Registration ..... from you. We paid a total of £1000.00 on a debit card for the vehicle.

 

We now find the vehicle has the following faults:

 

Gear box oil leak and oil leak from engine, also revs drop when accelerating, more severe when cold engine.

 

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 dealers must supplier goods fit for purpose and satisfactory quality. As there was a problem with the vehicle when we bought it, you are therefore in breach of contract.

 

The vehicle was taken to yourselves on the 03/02/18 to fix the bad running when cold and on the 31/03/18 to fix the oil leak, but you have not been able to rectify either problem.

 

We are now legally entitled to reject the vehicle and to be reimbursed for its full purchase price of £1000.00.I look forward to receiving this amount onto the debit card account that was used for the purchase within the next 14 days.

 

I have attached photos of the oil leaks in support of my claim.

The vehicle is now no longer in use.

 

Please respond within 14 days of receiving this letter.

 

Would it be best to send it by post or email it, i would need to email the photos of course.

 

I have attached advert.

 

Many Thanks

CarAdvert.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
Formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I'm afraid that you might have some difficulty here. The car was advertised "for spares or repair" and so from that point of view it conforms to its description and was fit for its purpose.

 

Of course you should be saved by the fact that the dealer told you that all it needed was a couple of new tyres but do you have any evidence of this? If you can prove that this is what was claim for the vehicle when you actually entered into the contract then you are in a very good position. If this representation was made to you over the telephone then if you had recorded the call, you would be home and dry. However I have a sense that you may not have recorded the call in which case it will be up to the honesty of the dealer and now they know that you are challenging them and it may cost them some money, they may deny that they said anything of the sort.

 

You've been here since 2009 – did you record the call?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I doubt it. It was advertised as spares or repair. What didn't you understand about that phrase?

 

If it was advertised spares or repair then that's what is was.....scrap or spend, your choice.

 

I'm afraid you can't have the penny and the bun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No recording unfortunately, but the dealer did replace the tyres before we collected it, not sure if thats enough evidence ?

 

I'm afraid that I don't think it is. I think you are saddled with it – and it's not often that I give this kind of advice!

 

You really should be recording your calls – but you know that now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if any thing is advertised as spares or repair and the faults are told to you in black and white, i.e just requires new tyres, ignore it as they are allowed to hide the other problems.......... :!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not at all what I said. In fact you are quite wrong. If something is advertised as being for spares or repair and yet the dealer goes on to give you a different story and you make the contract on that basis, then you are entitled to rely on the representation from the dealer and to disregard what has been said in the advertisement.

What I have said – or implied is that you don't have any evidence of what the dealer said. If you can get the dealer to repeat what he said that it simply needed two new tyres and that the car would then be okay, then you have him bang to rights. If you had recorded the call – and we have been encouraging everyone to do this for well over 10 years – then you would have had evidence and I would have been very confident on recommending that you took an action in the Small Claims Court. As it is, I'm going to assume that the dealer will deny and on that basis I think the chances of you winning any claim are probably no better than 25%. Not the kind of odds but I would want to run with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically if any thing is advertised as spares or repair and the faults are told to you in black and white, i.e just requires new tyres, ignore it as they are allowed to hide the other problems.......... :!:

 

Yep, that's about right.

 

I refer you to my previous answer, spares or repair = scrap or spend, your choice.

 

You can't have the penny and the bun...ie you can't buy a £1000 'spares or repairs' car and not expect it to be exactly that: break it for spares or repair the faults. That's what it means.

 

£1000 is banger money anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that's about right.

 

I refer you to my previous answer, spares or repair = scrap or spend, your choice.

 

You can't have the penny and the bun...ie you can't buy a £1000 'spares or repairs' car and not expect it to be exactly that: break it for spares or repair the faults. That's what it means.

 

£1000 is banger money anyway.

 

I'm afraid that's not what I said either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that's not what I said either.

 

No I know it isn't...the reply was to the op.

 

Basically ANYTHING on ebay sold spares or repair = trouble.

 

I completely agree with you that if the op had evidence that it only needed tyres then that's a different ball game.

 

But I'll bet that wasn't quite what was said. The dealer won't be an idiot. It will most likely have been 'well we are selling it spares or repair on behalf of a customer...it does need a couple of tyres though, so we will do them....'

 

I expect the receipt says spares or repair too.

 

Not good for the op....but spares or repair means, well, break it or repair it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point, lack of evidence the issue here. Even though the advert does indicate no faults, spares or repair has to be taken as everything wrong with the car unless dealer gives to you in writing all is ok apart from tyres ?

 

oddjobbob you are spot on what we were told 'well we are selling it spares or repair on behalf of a customer...it does need a couple of tyres though, so we will do them....'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, almost. If a dealer is selling car then you can presume it is roadworthy, safe, and will fairly reliably get you from a to b...bearing in mind the price paid. That doesn't need to be in writing, it's a given in consumer law.

 

the difference here is that is was advertised as 'spares or repair'...that is, sold on the basis that you will either use the parts from it for spares or spend money doing the repairs that are required.

 

and you weren't quite told 'it just needs a couple of tyres'...sad but true. sorry!

 

no doubt your receipt says spares / repairs also?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you bought the car, did you drive it away, or did you / the dealer have to put it on a trailer?

 

If you were able to drive it away, and the dealer's been doing repairs as well, I find it hard to believe a judge would see "spares and repairs" as anything but the dealer trying to weasel out of their CRA duties.

 

If on the off-chance it'd been recently MOT'd, or the dealer had it washed and valeted, the porkies really start mounting up.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

great post mttm...:thumb::thumb:

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

With the revs dropping while stationary try resetting the ecu by putting ignition on without starting the car and then leave it for 2 minutes.

Then start the car.

It works on VW and Audi, so maybe it will work on French cars too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This highlights something that I have noticed that is being used more and more in trade ads

 

. Dealers are stating "Sold as spares & repairs" or even "even though it starts we have no knowledge of the condition and advise it is taken away on a trailer.

..Sold spares & repairsr" .

 

Does this then absolve the dealer of any responsibility under the CPA?

 

Sorry if I've hijacked the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car was driven from the dealer, it looked as the car was cleaned and engine compartment plastic covers polished up ! he was very keen to replace the tyres before we collected it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This highlights something that I have noticed that is being used more and more in trade ads

 

. Dealers are stating "Sold as spares & repairs" or even "even though it starts we have no knowledge of the condition and advise it is taken away on a trailer.

..Sold spares & repairsr" .

 

Does this then absolve the dealer of any responsibility under the CPA?

 

Sorry if I've hijacked the thread.

 

Yes, I think it probably does.

 

These spares / repairs things do have a value of some kind and it would be absurd to say thy cannot be sold.

 

Spares / repairs = trouble, every time.

 

I am a retired car dealer, and if I ever took a px that was trouble I simply sent it to auction, sold as seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car was driven from the dealer, it looked as the car was cleaned and engine compartment plastic covers polished up ! he was very keen to replace the tyres before we collected it.

 

Good stuff, I think you stand an excellent chance of arguing that this wasn't a true sales 'n' repairs sale, and that the dealer's trying it on.

 

This highlights something that I have noticed that is being used more and more in trade ads

 

. Dealers are stating "Sold as spares & repairs" or even "even though it starts we have no knowledge of the condition and advise it is taken away on a trailer.

..Sold spares & repairsr" .

 

Does this then absolve the dealer of any responsibility under the CPA?

 

Sorry if I've hijacked the thread.

 

If you're selling cars to the general public, advertised on consumer websites, valeted, repaired, taxed, and suitable to drive away on the day, you're going to have a hard time arguing that the words "spares and repairs" or "sold as seen" are anything but trying to avoid your responsibilities to consumers.

 

Instead, the traders use these magic words because writing "I don't want to honour the CRA" would harm sales, and writing them helps the traders bully people out of their rights.

 

Even the idea that there are legions of consumers desperate to buy _entire cars_ for spare parts is an insult to the entire industry.

 

Yes, I think it probably does.

 

These spares / repairs things do have a value of some kind and it would be absurd to say thy cannot be sold.

 

Spares / repairs = trouble, every time.

 

No-one's saying that cars can't be sold for spares/repairs/as seen. The problem comes when you dress a car up as anything but that. It shouldn't be that difficult either; tell people why the car's not a runner, get customers to trailer it away, and don't invest money in making them better!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great reply, thanks.

 

I've seen a few cars that look in good nick etc, however they have the caveat "not tested, spares & repairs" I suppose it should act more as a indicator of the level of after sales care to be expected.

 

Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff, I think you stand an excellent chance of arguing that this wasn't a true sales 'n' repairs sale, and that the dealer's trying it on.

No, I don't, the ad specifically states spares / repairs twice and does not mention if it drives ok or if anything works. They got what was described in the ad.

 

If you're selling cars to the general public, advertised on consumer websites, valeted, repaired, taxed, and suitable to drive away on the day, you're going to have a hard time arguing that the words "spares and repairs" or "sold as seen" are anything but trying to avoid your responsibilities to consumers.

 

Instead, the traders use these magic words because writing "I don't want to honour the CRAicon" would harm sales, and writing them helps the traders bully people out of their rights.

Even the idea that there are legions of consumers desperate to buy _entire cars_ for spare parts is an insult to the entire industry.

Spares / repairs is fine and involves no comeback, as long as the ad is absolutely clear. Sold as seen is a big no no. Consumers see only what they want to see, which in this case was a bright looking modern car for £1000. I do agree slightly sticky ground allowing it to be driven away, but the ad is as solid as a rock, it couldn't be plainer.

 

No-one's saying that cars can't be sold for spares/repairs/as seen. The problem comes when you dress a car up as anything but that. It shouldn't be that difficult either; tell people why the car's not a runner, get customers to trailer it away, and don't invest money in making them better!

This one wasn't dressed up though...yes its been cleaned, but the ad could not be clearer. 'Sold for spares or repairs on behalf of a customer' And why not clean it? People buy with their eyes and not their brain sometimes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great reply, thanks.

 

I've seen a few cars that look in good nick etc, however they have the caveat "not tested, spares & repairs" I suppose it should act more as a indicator of the level of after sales care to be expected.

 

Thanks again.

 

Not the after sales care....there will be none, it's sold for spares! AVOID!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff, I think you stand an excellent chance of arguing that this wasn't a true sales 'n' repairs sale, and that the dealer's trying it on.

No, I don't, the ad specifically states spares / repairs twice and does not mention if it drives ok or if anything works. They got what was described in the ad.

 

If you're selling cars to the general public, advertised on consumer websites, valeted, repaired, taxed, and suitable to drive away on the day, you're going to have a hard time arguing that the words "spares and repairs" or "sold as seen" are anything but trying to avoid your responsibilities to consumers.

 

Instead, the traders use these magic words because writing "I don't want to honour the CRAicon" would harm sales, and writing them helps the traders bully people out of their rights.

Even the idea that there are legions of consumers desperate to buy _entire cars_ for spare parts is an insult to the entire industry.

Spares / repairs is fine and involves no comeback, as long as the ad is absolutely clear. Sold as seen is a big no no. Consumers see only what they want to see, which in this case was a bright looking modern car for £1000. I do agree slightly sticky ground allowing it to be driven away, but the ad is as solid as a rock, it couldn't be plainer.

 

No-one's saying that cars can't be sold for spares/repairs/as seen. The problem comes when you dress a car up as anything but that. It shouldn't be that difficult either; tell people why the car's not a runner, get customers to trailer it away, and don't invest money in making them better!

This one wasn't dressed up though...yes its been cleaned, but the ad could not be clearer. 'Sold for spares or repairs on behalf of a customer' And why not clean it? People buy with their eyes and not their brain sometimes!

 

You're not the OP, and writing in the first person is not helpful.

 

The whole reason that consumer legislation exists is because of stuff like you've written here. Thankfully we no longer live in that world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...