Jump to content

BigFatGreedyBanker

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

4 Neutral
  1. Thanks for the reply and the link. The car was paid by bank transfer so there’s no finance company to speak of. In the link it states... /////// 8 Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them. /////// This is exactly as I understood it but I can’t see any reference to where in the regulations it states that. I assume it’s in there somewhere, but where? Ignore me, I see there’s a link to the original at the bottom. Thanks.
  2. Hi, Looking for some advice and info on our rights if possible please. We purchased a car last week from a branch of Evans Halshaw https://www.evanshalshaw.com/ . It’s a 3 year old Kia with 17K miles on the clock and cost £6707. We did this as a distance sale without viewing the car or visiting the dealer. The dealer is quite a distance away from us. We responded to an Autotrader advert and did the transaction over the phone and by email. We asked lots of questions about the condition of the car and the dealer sent images etc. The only problem that the dealer highlighted to us was a small stone chip on the bonnet and the car was otherwise described as very good condition with no issues, as you’d expect for a car with so few miles that’s still under warranty (Kia warranty is 7 years). We agreed to go ahead and paid for the car via bank transfer as they wouldn’t take a card payment. The car was delivered on a trailer to our work address by the dealer, the cost for which was included in the price. We weren’t there and a colleague signed for it to say it had been received. When we inspected the car (a few hours after it was delivered) we noticed a very large area of mould growing in the boot. We’d specifically asked if there was any stains, marks etc on the interior (and have this on email) and was told there were not. We contacted the dealer to make them aware of the situation and they were going to organise for a local Evans Halshaw branch to clean it which, although not ideal would have been acceptable to us as we thought something may have just been spilt in there. During the rest of the (quite rainy) day the car was parked up outside in a car park along with a number of other cars. At some point we noticed that the windows were steaming up and covered in moisture on the inside. The other cars around it were bone dry on the inside. We relayed this info to the dealer and they said the local branch would sort it. That night after some thought and Googling on the possible causes, we decided that we didn’t want to get involved in having to track down the potential causes of this dampness which may not be a straight forward task and could possibly involve a process of elimination and dismantling the car. We then contacted the dealer and informed them we wanted to reject the car due to it not being as described and cancel the contract. They seem to think we only have the right to reject the car in a 14 day cooling off period if we paid by finance. And because it’s a car, the Distance Selling Regulations / Consumer Contracts Regulations don’t apply. After some debate they’ve agreed as a “good will gesture” to take the car back but want us to pay for the car to be returned as that’s what’s in their terms and conditions. We believe that that this cost should fall to them as the fault wasn’t described to us, this was a distance sale and the regulations take precedent over any terms they may have. Please can someone confirm what our rights are here? And if I’m correct and it is there responsibility to bear the return cost, any links to relevant regulations I can point them to would be great. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
  3. Brennan's Valiant Fight Against NatWest - 22/05/2007 "It's been a mammoth battle. Weapons used by the parties include the Office of Fair Trading's upcoming report into charges, some House of Lords rulings, a case regarding the supply of oil to Southern Rhodesia, European Directives, Austrian legislation, the Brussels Convention, the Treaty of Rome and even the Geneva Convention." Eh? I hope thats a Joke. That forgot to put in: The Intergalactic Treaty from StarWars Episode ii; The statement made by Jo (24) from Doncaster on page 3 of The Sun; The Bible [Luke 12:15]; and not to mention my Gran's opinion on the matter.
  4. Hi Zoot and thanks for the response. I was under the impression that as per the CAG announcement, pre-6 year claims should now be seen as "standard" claims. Are CAG retracting from this position now? I saw that you recommend including pre-6 year arguments in the POC (If that's what's being claimed). But I can't find any "official" or even "semi-official" CAG wording. Does some exist? I only ask because if these are standard claims then surely there should be some standard wording/info? Thanks.
  5. I've asked that a couple of times but no one seems to want to answer. I've also asked if I should put the pre-6 year argument in my POC but again no one seems to want to answer that either. Its a bit hard to feel confident about pre-6 year claims when no support is forthcoming. :-|
  6. Hi, I don't know what a directional hearing is maybe someone else could help you there? Or you could give the court a quick ring and ask. If its what you think it is, I would try to reason with the Judge by saying your friend is a litigant in person with no legal representation and that your impression is the SCT was designed for situations like yours i.e. To put both parties on an even footing. You could say that the potential financial lose due to the way costs may be awarded in the fast track would be too much for your friend to bare but insignificant for the bank. That might do it but in the end, as I've been told before, the Judge will decide. HTH and good luck
  7. Thanks CJ. If I do decide to send an amended LBA do I have to give them a further 14 days to comply? Also, should I mention in the LBA that I've removed the pre-6 years charges or should I just send the standard LBA with the amended figures? If I wait a further 14-16 days for the new LBA deadline, will it matter that by the time I get to court claim stage more of the charges will be older than 6 years? Sorry lots of questions. Cheers.
  8. Thanks Stornoway and ChloeJane, that has answered a couple of questions but not all of them. Claim is for £2700 (6 year charges=£2000, pre-6 year=£120, overdraft interest=£580). The bank have offered the £2000 but have refused the pre-6 year and OD interest. LBA deadline expired last week. I am in 3 minds as to whether to accept the £2000 and run, reduce the claim to just 6 years with OD interest or hold out for the whole lot. I must admit I'm starting to lean towards taking the money and running. I thought the 6 years counted back from the date of filing the court claim? Anyway, even if its from the prelim date, £120 would still be "pre" 6 years. I sent my Data Protection Act request and then was delayed for a couple of months before doing my prelim (hence a couple of months slipping off the end). This is what I'm finding confusing - on the pre-6 year thread one of the Mods (I think its Zootscoot) is saying to include it in the POC etc. Now your saying not to include in the POC. Whats the official CAG line on this? I'm getting a bit concerned about the validity of the pre-6 year bit, particularly without any CAG info backing it up. I'm worried that the same will happen to pre-6 year as happened to contractual interest. CI seemed to be supported and then after a while the Mods/CAG seemed to turn against the idea. I saw this and decided not to go for CI. I'm a bit worried that its been announced quite a while ago that pre-6 year claims are now "standard" and that the info will follow shortly, but no info has followed for quite some time. I don't want to cause any trouble, but as is reiterated in the FAQ's, I am about to take a bank to court (serious stuff) and want to be completely sure of what I'm taking them to court for and the process to use. Whats the CAG line on this? Is pre-6 years a standard claim still or is there a chance I could loose because of this issue? If disclosure is automatic why have the banks never had to actually disclose their costs even though a number of cases have ended up in court? Thanks again.
  9. Not meaning this to come across wrong (and I note the use of the word personally) but is this the official CAG line? If it should be included, can someone point me to some pre-6 year wording for the POC please? Thanks guys.
  10. Hello, I have a couple of questions, please feel free to swear at me whilst pointing me somewhere else if they've been asked before: 1) If some of my claim is pre-6 years should I mention this and my reasoning in my POC and subsequent AQ? I have read that if the bank don't bring it up then you shouldn't either? My problem is the bank have already brought it up in their response to my prelim. 2) If you are meant to include it in your POC can someone point me to some amended wording? 3) I read a while ago that the FAQ section was just about to be updated with pre-6 year info. Is this likely to be done any time soon? 4) If I want to request a full disclosure of the banks costs at what point should I request this and how do I go about doing it? Thanks Guys
  11. If you're still able to reply, just out of interest and for the sake of noseyness, what are your reasons?
×
×
  • Create New...