Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Wait for more replies, but that letter to me can be interpreted as a letter before action. Ignoring it can have consequences. The court to impose sanctions for failure in responding to a letter of claim.
    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
  • 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 previous fault


mikrt
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1917 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

My son paid £6k for a car last week, a 2010 golf with 77k miles. He bought it from a motor dealer in London.

 

His wife drove it down to my family in Wales, and on the 2nd day the car wouldn't engage D or R (auto-box)

 

He contacted the dealer, relaying the issue from his wife.

 

Unfortunately the issue has only worsened, and he decided, rightly in my view, that he was rejecting the car under the consumer rights act 2015 as it was less than 30 days old, and informed the dealer of this via email and phone-call.

 

I am driving the car back to the dealer in London on Saturday morning - exactly 7 days since the purchase.

 

Since looking at the paperwork with the car, please see link

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=19FvkpDbBqEgJe39jH6HFTnSi_Ddvb2XF

 

It seems the previous owner also had a the same fault.

 

My question is, does this piece of paper go in our favour as proof the fault already existed, or against us as he took the car with that paper in the service book, therefore accepting the fault.

 

Basically - Do I wave that under the dealer's nose, or hide it?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are probably better off not mentioning it to the dealer. It could become a point of contention

 

Your car comes with any defects that were pointed out to you or if you carried out an inspection, any defects which that inspection could reasonably have revealed.

 

I think your position has to be that you didn't know about this and that the dealer didn't point it out to you. Are you able to say that the documents were made available to you until after the contract was complete?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This document was in the folder in the glove-box.

 

I'd say, obviously the dealer wasn't aware it was there as that would potentially (if they'd bother looking!!) put off a customer.

 

So yes it was available, but not pointed out either.

 

I would have thought buying from a dealer you should expect a working car in good condition without looking for faults, but I maybe naive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that you photocopy the document and then put it back in the glove box and leave it there and don't refer to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't leave it in the glove box.

The dealer might refer to it saying that this fault was pointed out to you and paperwork given to you.

They're very good at taking statements from their employees.

Take the car back, show them the fault, get your money back (If they comply)

Don't mud the waters with anything else.

Are they a large dealer or a back street dealer?

If the latter, they'll probably refuse to refund, shut the Ltd company and open a new one next day, unless they are registered as traders but not Ltd, then you need a bit of luck and hope they have personal assets.

I read an article a couple of years ago of this guy who got conned and then spent weeks outside the garage discouraging potential customers.

He eventually got his money back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update, I called citizens advice this morning, and they informed me I should show it to them as proof that the fault was already there.

I asked about the opposite, and was told that even if we knew there was a fault before, it was bought in what should have been a faultless condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but citizens advice are wrong. I'm sorry to say that they are often wrong. Well-intentioned, but often wrong.

 

Have a look at subsection 4 - https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448210-9-Goods-to-be-of-satisfactory-quality

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...