Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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
      • 160 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

Lifetime Guarantee Problem Stoneacre


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2093 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have had my car (Ford Fiesta) since June 21st last year.

Now my issue is I have a knocking noise coming from the front passenger side of the car. No idea what it is.

 

I rang Stoneacre up and they asked details and such and said your service is due, I had said, the service has been done through someone else because well they were cheaper then what stoneacre could do.

 

He said ok, but your lifetime guarantee is invalid in that case, because you needed to get the car serviced with us for your warranty to be still valid.

 

ok then, he said I can get the car serviced again with them and get my car looked at and repaired under my warrenty. I said Ill get back to him.

 

I looked at my lifetime warranty book and it does say i should of got the car serviced with them.

 

The car is less then 2yrs old.

why cant I still get it done under the Manufacture warranty and not stoneacres.

 

Im really confused on what i can do.

 

When the car was serviced Ford parts were used on the service.

Edited by dx100uk
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget warranties not worth the paper they are written on

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

Who supplied the car? How many miles has it done?

 

Have you any idea what the knocking is?

 

In principle you are covered by the Consumer Rights Act which means that you are entitled to receive vehicle which will be of satisfactory quality and which will remain that way for a reasonable period of time. Depending on what the fault is, you will probably be able to say that this is a defect which should be repaired under the Consumer Rights Act

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought it at just over 9k miles and ive just hit 22k miles in less then a year. I do alot of driving, anyway I bought the car from Ford Stoneacre. I believe they have a Vauxhall Stoneacre to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will need to go back to them and tell them that you want it repaired under your consumer rights under the Consumer Rights Act. I suggest that you put this in a polite note to them and give it to them and also send a copy to their head office.

 

I suppose that they will still bluster and deny in which case come back here and we will let you know the various courses of action you can take which basically will be to threaten them with a court action and then to sue them in the County Court.

 

It would be prudent to try and discover what the knocking noise is first all however, I can scarcely imagine that a pretty new car of only 30,000 miles should develop any kind of knocking at all. In fact what you could do would be to take the car there without any threats and ask them to check it, to identify the fault and to give you a quotation. After you have that, tell them that you will think about it and come back here and tell us what it is. However, it's almost certain that you will be in a position to force them, if necessary, to carry out the work under your consumer rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also with regards to car warranties, there was a rule which said that the car can be serviced at any vat registered garage using original parts and following the service schedule to preserve the warranty.

But cra prevails anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No no no.

 

As usual people who don't know what they are talking about are giving miss leading advice.

 

Manufacturers warrant the car for 12 months from new, after that any warranty is down to an insurance policy which has very strict stipulations as to the servicing requirements.

 

It is wrong to give advice that you can use anyone for servicing after the manufacturers warranty has expired.

 

The first year is very different from subsequent years

 

I'd appreciate it if the [removed] attitude of some of the site team would read up on this so they would actually calm down and realise that their comments can lead to grave disappointment. !!!!

Edited by dx100uk
Insult removed..dx
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No no no.

 

As usual people who don't know what they are talking about are giving miss leading advice.

 

Manufacturers warrant the car for 12 months from new, after that any warranty is down to an insurance policy which has very strict stipulations as to the servicing requirements.

 

It is wrong to give advice that you can use anyone for servicing after the manufacturers warranty has expired.

 

The first year is very different from subsequent years

 

I'd appreciate it if the [removed] attitude of some of the site team would read up on this so they would actually calm down and realise that their comments can lead to grave disappointment. !!!!

 

sorry, but once again we are getting completely incorrect information from heliosuk

 

It is correct to say that if you want to take advantage of a manufacturers warranty then you are probably constrained by the terms that warranty including servicing requirements.

However if you want to rely on your statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act then there are no particular requirements as to designated repairer/servicer to be observed. You are entitled take your vehicle to whichever service garage you wish – and as long as they do a job which is considered to be reasonable so that you can be said to be maintaining your car in the way that a reasonable consumer would do, then you can rely absolutely on your statutory consumer rights.

 

I'm sorry to say that we are starting to get a number of instances of incorrect advice from user:heliosuk and people should prefer advice given by the site team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read Heliosuk's post properly you will see that he is differentiating between manufacturer's warranty which is governed by European legislation which PERMITS non dealership servicing to the manufacturer's criteria and does not invalidate the warranty.

 

After the expiration of that 12 month MANDATORY warranty, any further period, even offered by the franchise, is based on an insurance policy, the underwriter of which can set its own conditions.

 

This is seperate to the CRA rights which we all agree override ANY warranty whether Manufacturer or extended and is pursued against the selling dealer, not the manufacturer.

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

An Australian court has fined Apple A$9m (£5m;$6.5m) for refusing to fix iPhones and iPads that had been serviced by third parties.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44529315

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't drive an Apple, neither am I living in Australia. Not sure of the relevance of this link!

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

  • 2 weeks later...
If you read Heliosuk's post properly you will see that he is differentiating between manufacturer's warranty which is governed by European legislation which PERMITS non dealership servicing to the manufacturer's criteria and does not invalidate the warranty.

 

After the expiration of that 12 month MANDATORY warranty, any further period, even offered by the franchise, is based on an insurance policy, the underwriter of which can set its own conditions.

 

This is seperate to the CRA rights which we all agree override ANY warranty whether Manufacturer or extended and is pursued against the selling dealer, not the manufacturer.

 

 

Perhaps based on this the ill informed Bankfodder might like to reconsider his ill informed decision to censure me for this post and consider his contributions to this part of the forum as obviously is extremely weak in this area. Automotive is a very subjective area of the law which I unfortunately have to deal with and intervene world wide on a regular basis at the highest levels. Higher even than basic consumer law come to that but I doubt he will.

 

 

In fact, whilst my posts are factual, his are not and are frankly libellous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from anything else the original post was about a Stoneacre backed 'lifetime' guarantee and not a 'warranty' per se, as you are all using the term.

 

It is a marketing tool which Stoneacre use to tie their customers in returning for a service. If the customer is aware and uses it correctly it can be a benefit.

 

Everyone has a choice.

 

H

44 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...