Jump to content


Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 19/04/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Also, without wishing too much to wake up this discussion once again, the above quote is quite wrong. It would be correct if it said:- So to summarise, the burden of proof is on the dealer to show that the defect was not there – certainly within the first six months. Furthermore, if there is a defect, than the quality/severity of the defect is not relevant. It entitles you to your right to reject within 30 days or your right to reject after a failed repair during six months. Only after six months do the normal common law rules of contract come in play. But even then, it is not a question of proving or disproving a defect. It is simply a question of showing that you have not had satisfactory service/quality from the item for a reasonably expected period of time. I would certainly agree that these are very heavy burdens/responsibilities for any dealer. But this is what consumer-facing legislation is all about. It's all about consumer protection and the reason for it is that if you place the burden upon the dealer then it creates a huge incentive upon the dealer to be careful or if the dealer has to source his goods from a manufacturer then it puts pressure on the dealer to put pressure on the manufacturer to make sure that goods are of a sufficient quality. As far as I'm concerned, this is good social planning – and we all benefit – including the car dealer when that car dealer goes off to buy other things such as computers, telephones, music systems, televisions, and even their own vehicle. It encourages quality control at source – and this is highly desirable and is only achievable by having this kind of consumer legislation.
  2. 1 point
    thye are trying to catch you out. Ignore it and send a short letter to the court saying you want an oral hearing at your local county court. that will mean they have to shell out another £75 and they wmay well decide to drop the entire matter to save themselves the costs of that and your costs as well when they lose. that is why they are keen, you wont be able to challenge their lies if held on paper, dont forget solicitors are telling lies 50% of the time or their would be no judgements
  3. 1 point
    I phoned their solicitors yesterday. they did all they could to get me to arrange payments on this account. They agreed they’d changed the address but wouldn’t have anymore to do with that. Just kept pushing me to arrange payment. In the end they said they dealt with things in a case by case basis, and that if I wanted to apply for a set aside and could afford to do so then I could try, but as far as they were concerned they got their judgement and it stands and I need to pay. I don’t believe for a second that it was a simple admin error, I think it was another way for them to sneak a judgement through. Can they get away with this? It is so underhand. Anyway, Tuesday I will apply for set aside. Will I be able to explain what they’ve done? Will I be able to use it as part of my witness statement if I can get the set aside? sorry for all the questions, I’m really a bit nervous with all of this, and more annoyed than I probably ought to be..
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
    They want on the papers as it almost guarantees them a default judgment, when the proper DQ comes from THE COURT, insist on a proper hearing,
×
×
  • Create New...