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

Likelyhood of trading standards pursuing complaint?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2141 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

Ok, 1st post on here so bare with me....

 

Bought a car in mid Feb this year for 3.5k, 6weeks later an engine mount fails and the dealer tries to fob off with "I'll get it fixed for you at trade cost". I use my right to reject and compose a letter to demand it repaired under the CRA.

 

At this point I find out that the dealer xxx motor company, is actually xxxx body repairs (I won't name and shame as we are still in dispute). The sales invoice hadn't included this info and I wasn't made aware at time of sale.

 

If I'd known I was buying from a body repair shop I wouldn't have bought the vehicle. The company director is also his wife, but under her maiden name on companies house. So it took me a bit of FB stalking and 2hrs searching on companies house to even be sure who to reject the vehicle to.

 

I get no responce, so compose another letter, giving more detail on the fault and why I'm rejecting. Then get a letter back from "law firm". Basically saying it's an old car so it'll break down, deal with it. I reply with chapter and verse, an mention that their 'member' did not disclose who they are on the sales receipt along with a request to confirm the milage at time of sale as my invoice says exactly 75,000. So in the eyes of the law I had completed only 150miles.balso for copies of a service check on the vehicle and or pdi as I have no copies given to me at time of sale.

 

They come back two weeks later with, yes the dealer rounded up the milage on the sales receipt! (illegal) And have included a copy of a pdi and service. Turns out the service check was completed after I'd laid down my deposit and taken for a test drive (also illegal) . So he had no idea the condition of the vehicle when he put it on the forecourt, I took a testdrive in what could have been a death trap.

 

At this point Ive already contacted the back for a chargeback. Which has gone into my bank account, but he can still dispute in the next 6 weeks. I've responded to "law firm" with your member has committed a criminal offence(s) and I'll take it to small claims if he tries to refute the chargeback.

 

Due to the severity of the above and flat refusal of liability on the dealers part I've also reported direct to the local trading standards with the above info and evidence to back it up.

 

Now I'm happy to take home to scc if required as I'm 100% I'd get cost of the car back just on the mis selling of the vehicle under the wrong trading name. However, how likely are trading standards to take action and if so how do I find out if they have?

 

He's basically only checking cars after they are sold (if at all as service check sheet could have been completed at any point in the last 4 months), and is pretending his main trade is a car dealership rather than a body repair shop. He could potentially be taking vehicles that have come through the body repair shop, offering customers a part ex and doing a quick fix to what could be prang on a vehicle and then selling on for big profit through the sales site (what I suspect with my car due to the type of fail and his reaction on the phone).

 

Oh and here is the crux, he also didn't include Ltd on the sales invoice (or any other documents) so he or his wife could be personally liable rather that the Ltd company she is director of (there is a case law which proves this).

If I do have to take to scc - who do I serve against? The Ltd Co. He who sold the car and signed the invoice or her who is sole director of the Ltd company?

 

This could end up losing him his marriage as well as business.

Edited by Barlowjc
Link to post
Share on other sites

.....................

Ok, 1st post on here so bare with me....

 

Bought a car in mid Feb this year for 3.5k, 6weeks later an engine mount fails and the dealer tries to fob off with "I'll get it fixed for you at trade cost". I use my right to reject and compose a letter to demand it repaired under the CRA. YOUR RIGHT TO REJECT IS 30 DAYS NOT 6 WEEKS.

 

At this point I find out that the dealer xxx motor company, is actually xxxx body repairs (I won't name and shame as we are still in dispute). The sales invoice hadn't included this info and I wasn't made aware at time of sale. SO WHAT?

 

If I'd known I was buying from a body repair shop I wouldn't have bought the vehicle. The company director is also his wife, but under her maiden name on companies house. So it took me a bit of FB stalking and 2hrs searching on companies house to even be sure who to reject the vehicle to. SO WHAT?

 

I get no responce, so compose another letter, giving more detail on the fault and why I'm rejecting. Then get a letter back from "law firm". Basically saying it's an old car so it'll break down, deal with it. I reply with chapter and verse, an mention that their 'member' did not disclose who they are on the sales receipt along with a request to confirm the milage at time of sale as my invoice says exactly 75,000. So in the eyes of the law I had completed only 150miles.balso for copies of a service check on the vehicle and or pdi as I have no copies given to me at time of sale. IF THE ACTUAL MILEAGE WAS SAY 74600 AND HE PUT 75000 THATS FINE.

 

They come back two weeks later with, yes the dealer rounded up the milage on the sales receipt! (illegal) NO IT'S NOT And have included a copy of a pdi and service. Turns out the service check was completed after I'd laid down my deposit and taken for a test drive (also illegal) NO ITS NOT So he had no idea the condition of the vehicle when he put it on the forecourt, I took a testdrive in what could have been a death trap. BUT IT WASN'T SO YOU SUFFERED NO LOSS.

 

At this point Ive already contacted the back for a chargeback. Which has gone into my bank account, but he can still dispute in the next 6 weeks. I've responded to "law firm" with your member has committed a criminal offence(s) NO HE HASN'T and I'll take it to small claims if he tries to refute the chargeback. BEST OF LUCK WITH THAT

 

Due to the severity SEVERITY? REALLY? of the above and flat refusal of liability LIABLE FOR WHAT? on the dealers part I've also reported direct to the local trading standards with the above info and evidence to back it up. NOTHING I CAN SEE HERE TO BACK UP TBQH

 

Now I'm happy to take home to scc if required as I'm 100% I'd get cost of the car back just on the mis selling of the vehicle under the wrong trading name. I'D SAY NO BETTER THAN 50% TBH However, how likely are trading standards to take action and if so how do I find out if they have? NOT VERY LIKELY AT ALL IF THIS IS THE ONLY COMPLAINT, MORE LIKELY IF IT IS A TRADER ALREADY ON THEIR RADAR

 

He's basically only checking cars after they are sold and is pretending his main trade is a car dealership rather than a body repair shop. He could potentially be taking vehicles that have come through the body repair shop, offering customers a part ex and doing a quick fix to what could be prang on a vehicle and then selling on for big profit through the sales site HE'S PERFECTLY WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO DO THAT AS LONG AS HE'S NOT SELLING INSURANCE WRITE OFFS WITHOUT DECLARING IT.(what I suspect with my car due to the type of fail and his reaction on the phone).

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, in response to Oddjobbob's now deleted ? quote.

 

 

law regards not including his correct company contact info:

The Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business (Names and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2015 section 25 (1), they should disclose appropriated information as set out in section 25 (2)(b)(a)

 

incorrectly writing the mileage on a sales invoice is a breach under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. It has to be the exact mileage on the day of sale, not one mile under or over. its apparently approx 900+ in my case which works in my favour with the vehicle breakdown and right to reject (for repair, which i requested at the time, not a refund), but neither i nor he knows what the correct mileage is on the day of sale, that's one reason why its the law.

 

Putting the car through mechanical due diligence prior to putting it up for sale or on a forecourt is also covered under Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Edited by Barlowjc
Link to post
Share on other sites

HE'S PERFECTLY WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO DO THAT AS LONG AS HE'S NOT SELLING INSURANCE WRITE OFFS WITHOUT DECLARING

He is, but the point Is had I known his primary business was body repairs rather than car trading I wouldn't have bought from him. Trading under a trading name which is different to your company name is legal as long as you declare it and show it on all company paperwork and especially sales receipts.

It's also an obstruction, as without a company name and number on the sales invoice its more difficult to prove who you are dealing/trading with.

After my letter pointing this out he has subsequently updated his Web site with the correct company info.

Edited by Barlowjc
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have some good ammunitions.

Firstly, your sale receipt doesn't mention the ltd company so you can go after the person who sold you the car personally.

Secondly, you had a written record of having covered only 150 miles with the car. This was the best evidence that the car was faulty at point of sale, but then you disputed the mileage recorded on the receipt (as far as i understand, please confirm).

Frankly i have seen dealers being economical with mileage record, never record 900 miles more.

Thirdly, your bank is on your side at the moment, so hold tight and remind them of the cra.

Crucial point: What's the make model and year of this vehicle? Price paid?

I ask because if you bought a 1990 car for £100 you would expect for things not to be perfect, differently if you bought a 2 year old car for £20k with fsh.

So please update.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't dispute the milage on the sales receipt, I just asked the law firm to confirm I'd only completed 150miles. They are the ones disputing it, and have provided admission that the dealer rounded it up.

Im waiting on reply at the moment to see if he'll fight the bank, they issued the chargeback based on supply of faulty goods. The issues on the invoice won't come into play.

 

It was a 10+ year old Vw Touran and approx 3.5k. Which is approx market value for the car considering age and mileage.

My point is that he didnt check if the car was on good condition prior to selling or advertising it he's in the wrong. He may not have known that there was a fault with the car, but thats the issue. He should have checked it over prior to taking a deposit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, and as usual on this site, people who don't know the in's and outs are getting involved and those that do get their posts clipped, edited or deleted. No doubt this one will be too. however, whilst you have a point with a fault your attitude is not going to help you. Frankly given the nature of the fault, it's not a major issue and does not prevent the use of the car.

 

 

Can't see why you're being so aggressive as you obviously know nothing about cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Engine mount failed completely, ie most likely the bolts snapped. The bolts need replacing on this car when you do a cam belt as they are designed to shear in an accident. If you don't replace them and reuse the old ones they can fail several 1000 miles after the cam belt has been changed.

 

As a result the Engine shifted (dramatically, I suggest you Google it), cam belt shredded and clutch went to floor (clutch / gear box issue).

 

Vehicle is undrivable and had to be towed back to the garage.

 

Dealer has had the car 4 months and other than confirming (last week) that the engine mount has failed, has provided any other info in the car.

 

However all of this is irrelevant, as has nothing to do with my question.

Edited by Barlowjc
Link to post
Share on other sites

I regret to have to inform you that Trading Standards are no longer the consumer's friend that you might believe.

 

They do not get involved in individual cases unless a strong public interest is apparent. They might note it and should they have several complaints against the same trader, look further to see if there is systemic breaches of the Consumer Laws.

 

There is no longer a direct access to Trading Standards, you have to go through your local Citizen's Advice Bureau instead.

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...