Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • 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?
  • 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

Used car broken down, Dealer Crescent Cars in Baldock Hertfordshire ignoring consumer rights


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1927 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,

 

I purchased a Peugeot 207 from a reputable dealer (or so I thought) for just under £3000 just over six weeks ago. This car is on finance.

 

The car broke down, the clutch has gone completely, just after six weeks and I have driven less than 200 miles in the car.

 

The dealer are blaming me for the fault and are refusing to put this right.

I have quoted the consumer law 2015 at them stating that they have to prove the car didn't have the fault when I purchased it.

They are still refusing to deal with the situation and that I have to pay for repair.

 

Now I am desperate to get the car back on the road as I use it to commute and to pick up my kids from my estranged spouse.

Should I pay for repair and try to claim it back?

Should I just cancel the finance?

Any advice on this welcome.

 

Thanks

 

Oh and to name and shame the dealer this is "Crescent Cars" in Baldock Hertfordshire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you reported it to the finance company ?

 

What type of finance did you take out ?

 

 

Andy

 

Thread title updated

We could do with some help from you.

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

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of finance....HP/PL/ ???

We could do with some help from you.

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

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/goods-and-services-bought-with-credit.html#2a

 

Which finance company? Begin an immediate complaint against them. Contact them, give them the details of your complaint and tell them they have eight weeks and then you want to go to the ombudsman.

 

In the meantime I would also send a letter to the dealer and threatened with legal action within 14 days under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 . Then begin the small claim. It sounds to me as if this is a fundamental breach of contract in which case you are entitled to reject the car completely.

 

If you decide that that causes too much of a problem for you because of your need for transport then the answer is – yes, have the touch repaired and then sue for the cost plus any additional losses such as car hire et cetera while the work is being done.

 

Write a letter to the dealer and put them on notice that this will happen in the next five days – I think five days very reasonable in the circumstances – unless they undertake immediately to collect the car and to repair it. It will only take a single day to repair the clutch.

 

Then tell them that you will be starting a legal action to recover the money within 14 days of the date of your letter. Don't bluff. Don't send letters like this unless you are prepared to carry out the threat. We will help you all the way.

 

Steer clear of Crescent cars in Baldock in future and tell your friends. Also, I suggest that you start going around the internet to the review sites and post up your opinion of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the letter all ready to go. I am getting the car delivered to them on Monday be recovery which is £50. I am giving them 14 days to refund my money for the repair and the recovery as they told me the car had six month's warranty I cancelled my Recovery services.

 

The letter reads:

 

02/11/2018

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

REFERENCE: P****/Crescent Cars Limited-Peugeot 207

 

I purchased a Peugeot 207 Registration number BJ***** from Crescent Cars Limited. At the point of purchase I paid £2850.

 

This Peugeot 207 is unfit for purpose. I purchased the car on the 16th of September 2018. After using the car for just over six weeks and less than 200 miles the clutch has failed completely.

 

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes it an implied term of the contract I have with Crescent Cars Limited that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality.

 

As you are in breach of contract and and I've owned the product for less than 6 month’s and you are refusing to repair or replace this vehicle, I am within my statutory rights to ask for a refund of up to 100% of the original cost paid.

 

I am giving you notice that you have refused to repair the car that I am expecting a refund from you for the costs of the repairs and the recovery of the Vehicle. This is £533 for the repair and £50 recovery.

 

I await confirmation that you will provide the remedy set out above within 14 days of the date of this letter. After this date I shall be making a Small Claim against you in court.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Anthony P*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good, but is it the consumer rights act or is it the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 s I'm not too sure. You need to check it.

 

According to the FOS website it is the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/goods-and-services-bought-with-credit.html#2a

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 covers sales when the customer has, what is commonly known as, bought the car on HP. In an HP sale, it is the finance company and not the dealer who have the legal liability to resolve the matter with the customer if anything goes wrong.

 

Both of those Acts will be amended come October. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 will continue to relate to business to business contracts and issues such as the passing of title in goods but, the main ‘business to consumer’ provisions will now be found in the new Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

Similarly, ‘business to consumer’ issues from the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 will also now be incorporated into the new Consumer Rights Act 2015 as will the ‘business to consumer’ issues from the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

 

 

 

https://www.iaaf.co.uk/news-item/legal-update-from-lawgistics

We could do with some help from you.

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

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. That is helpful. We need to change the Autolink

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Update,

 

The car got fixed and paid for by the finance company. However the first problem which was reported DPF clogging, which was returned within a week of purchasing has come back and now the engine has a fault. The garage are claiming this is "wear and tear". This car was purchased less than four month's ago! The finance company are getting an independent inspection done.

Avoid Crescent Cars in Baldock, they are the biggest Cowboys ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you only did 200 miles in six weeks it would suggest that you should not have purchased a diesel vehicle. If you do lots of short runs or a majority of your driving is urban driving then the car is completely unsuitable for your usage. A clogged DPF is a sign it is not getting hot enough to regenerate (every 300/500 miles usage/model dependant). Diesel engines are very thermo-efficient so take a long time to warm up. For a DPF to regen the car needs to be driven at 40mph plus with the revs not too low.

 

The supplying garage not even getting involved with the clutch is a poor show but how do you know the clutch failure was not down to driver error?

Link to post
Share on other sites

After a few weeks? Driver error. Depress clutch and it should return, not just stay on the floor. The car is always driven at 40mph at least down the dual carriageway. The dpf shouldn't clog every week or about 30 miles?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That does sound like a hydraulic fault rather than the friction plate being burnt out. You can burn a clutch out within 50 miles if hard of hearing or inexperienced. That is precisely why i suggested the first call would have been for the garage to inspect the clutch and go from there.

 

Regarding the DPF if you are saying you are only doing 30 miles per week then a diesel is not suitable for your style of driving. Some 6 speed cars are so low revving that even at 60-70mph in top gear the revs are too low to create the heat to regenerate.

 

Did you do any research before buying a diesel car?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's a normal problem with dpf unfortunately.

As you do very little mileage, your engine doesn't works at full operating temperature and the dpf gets clogged.

Look online and you will find thousands of posts in motoring forums about problems with dpf.

If you can manage to return the car for a refund, I would advise it.

Then you can get a petrol or a diesel without dpf which would be more suitable for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting a refund will be the hard part. I am trying to reject the car as "unfit for purpose" let's see how it goes. Thanks for your help.

 

I am waiting for the finance company to get this car inspected. They say this can be four weeks, in the meantime I am paying finance for a car that has broken down four times in less than three month's. What is a reasonable amount of time to wait for this to happen. I am without a car, can I just reject this now as I am getting nowhere fast?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most diesel engined cars need to cover at least 12 miles or so before the oil starts getting warm. Forget the water temp gauge or the fact that warm air is coming through the cars interior vents as most diesels have electric air heaters as the engines themselves take so long to warm up. At Skoda, for example, i remember the sales staff being instructed to advise customers that DPF equipped vehicles should be covering 25k per year, now 25k sounds a little excessive but ive seen problems with VW's that were doing circa 16k miles per year.

 

Many DFP equipped cars rarely get hot enough to perform passive regeneration. Every time a forced regen is attempted it shortens the lifespan of the filter and puts the engine under strain. Most of the time the filters are replaced they didn't need to be in my experience, plus the OE part is then replaced with a pattern part which does not have sufficient flow rate to work properly. Many companies charge around £200 to perform a DPF clean where the filter is placed in a rig and chemically cleaned. This can also be done in DIY fashion using Cillit Bang and a pressure washer!

 

If you are using poor quality fuel you will most likely find that the car will attempt to perform a regeneration more frequently. For every person moaning saying they are having DPF issues there are many others who have never had a single issue driving DPF equipped cars.

 

If your car had a hydraulic fault with the clutch the supplying dealer should have come to the party. The DPF issue is less clear though, is it a fault with the system on your car (pressure/temp sensor etc) or is it simply not being used enough, and in the correct fashion, to passively regenerate. When hooked up to decent, dealer level diagnostics the live data should indicate how the filter is functioning (if its blocked and if the flow rate is ok ETC).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...