Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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

Lifetime Guarantee Problem Stoneacre


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2121 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...