Still waiting for clarification of your "facts" but again you have failed to read the posts and are again making assumptions and not facts. You may want to look up the definitions of the terms in a dictionary before using them, that said I don't pretend to know all and do my homework which is what I have done and I thank those who have contributed,forgive me for thinking that this was a place for consumers who are either wanting or looking for advice....... doh.. Just to add, a fellow member has also bought a car with a similar problem and has been successful in his claim, sure he, MB, the garage he bought the car from are all wrong and little old you is right) So I am not prepared to waste time with people like yourself, have a nice life pretending to be everything you claim to be)) There We Are Then)

I will do, I have a report/health check with the fault code from MB on paper which was a detailed check carried out by them and they said should the fault return with that particular code then the valve needs replacing. Just to add, its an auto box not manual.

Clearly not reading what I have posted. Car had what could be described as fault withgearbox. Agreed this would be investigated and resolved. Car continues to behave faulty after collection and I then have the car diagnosed which is identified as the faulty valve. With all due respect, I bought in good faith and the car has a fault, so why ignore this and gloat about the fact I should not have bought it when I did under the assumption it would be corrected. Again, mileage is irrelevant as is your analysis as the valve can go at anytime and has been proven to go on new and old 7g boxes so I am not sure of your point really other than inflammatory and petulant like your fellow keyboard hero. Oh, could you please provide evidence on your comments on the age related diagnosis of the gearbox please? I think Mercedes will also find it interesting that you feel that at 90k, a gearbox is on it's last legs given that Mercedes with the modified valve now seal this unit for life and are rolling this box on all their cars.

I have, the car was diagnosed with a particular fault code which relates to this fault. I am going to take the car back again to have the codes checked as the memory was wiped clean and test driven and checked before the car was handed over to me and this was by a MB dealer. I know about MB boxes, 4th one now and the last one was smoother than this. It is a known fault and there was a bulletin issued internally by MB about a fix but my issue is that I agreed to buy the car under the basis that this would be investigated and resolved before I picked up. The garage specifically stated that his local MB dealer found no fault with the car which is what I will be disputing as when I had the car diagnosed it was clear that this fault had been stored for some time. The car actually had to go back a week later as a glow plug needed changing and I advised then it was still running a little rough and he then a second time claimed to have contamination check carried out which was fine. The problem is not contamination but the internal valve which only becomes most apparent when you are in stop and start traffic or when coming to a stop.

I will look into this, whats the best way to introduce the SOGA into a conversation without being a bull in tea shop?

So, Mr Wonderful, please explain why you are on a forum for consumers? Personally, I think it would be great to be able to go to a reputable garage and have an element of trust? Maybe its time you heed your own advise and "walk"... see no reason why you should post here and I find it sad that you gloat at the misfortune of others and claim some superficial form of superior intellect from your mumblings. Bye.

Sorry, it was may 22nd 2011 and comes with a 3 month warranty for engine and gearbox. The garage and the dealer both advised the car needs to be driven to allow the car to adapt to my driving style, should this fail to resolve the harsh changes in gear then it is the fault diagnosed. I have dealt with trading standards in the past and my understanding is that I have to exhaust all possibilities before I can start to insist that the repair work be carried out by MB? as the part is blocked to the public by them. The part in question is a hyrdraulic valve which is what is causing the problem, worst case scenario is the car just shuts down without causing further problems but the valve needs to be changed.

The car is a mercedes E280 cdi and on a 56 plate and has covered 90k... the car has an adaptive memory gearbox. It is known for the car to take time as it adapts to your driving which will drive how you drive and can also result in harsh gear changes but its not something that you can realise in a 5 mile test run. The sale was agreed with the promise that the gearbox would be looked at and resovled before the sale but clearly this has not been the case. The garage did not show me the health check report which confirms this but I have a letter from my local dealer which confirms the fault code and what is required to fix. As his local dealer did not identify this fault, I do not trust them moreso as the fault has been there for a long time. I have since spoke with him and what we agreed is that I will run the car for another 1000 miles to see if the car resolves the problem with the gear change but it looks like its starting to develop again. The garage is asking I leave the car with him but I see no reason why I should as this is a dealer fix only, and can only be carried out by MB so my local dealer would be better for me unless he is looking to do something else in an attempt to band aid the problem. I am going to take the car to him to show what is happening but as this is a dealer only fix which has been confirmed by both my local dealer and an independent aswell as online forums am I right to say it is irrelevant that he has the work carried out locally? I know I have to give him the opportunity to fix this but the part is on back order from MB and my car could be parked up for a long time which is not acceptable given I need the car for work.

Well clearly we are not all as great or as wonderful as you, dont have anything constructive to say then crawl back into your little hole.

I am about to start a SAR with Cap one, is the right letter to use? I have checked the forums and believe this to be the one. Account Number Account In Dispute Re; capitalone request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I am writing to say that i am making a request to capital one on 09-2010 under section 77-9 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a true copy of my agreement . To clarify, just sending the terms and conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a "true copy" of the agreement. This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows; As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, "the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form." This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557. Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are: Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements; And more importantly Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations. You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations. Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557. The regulations state: (2) There may be omitted from any such copy- (a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy; (b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies); It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations. The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso. Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions. It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented. I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues Please be advised that I will only communicate with you in writing. I have noted your repeated attempts to contact me by telephone over the past few weeks/months and these have been duly logged by time and date. Furthermore, should it be your intention to arrange a "doorstep call", please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with you. There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384 . per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance. Yours Faithfully

Hi all Having problems with cap one. Cut a long story short, I moved and they failed to update the details and as such I did not recieve statements. Anyway, I have made a couple of late pAyment and as such incurred late payment fees. Just received a statement and I am nearly 300 over the limit and they are asking for full payment. I spoke to them and the Indian call centre don't want to know, advised it is difficult at the moment but they are not interested. Can anyone give me any advice on what to do?

Thats the thing, they did not. My father told them from the word go and they within a month or so had him sent off for a medical. He did not hear anything until nearly a year after he started to get these letters advising of a problem with liability and the fact that the driver was claiming he had not hit my father. At no point did the solicitor before the medical get in touch with him asking for further details about the accident. they rail roaded the claim with minimal corrospondance. He has now changed his story to him rolling into my fathers car bearing in mind that this was on a hill with cctv footage available.

I understand that but given the details as above that were given at the time, the solicitor is clearly now making steps to make my dad responsible and seek money from him as the third party is both changing thier stories and now statig that there is no claim as they claim there was very little impact The car in question has now also been sold. The solicitor i question where very keen from the word go to logde the claim and it was them who guided and advised him on what to do.

All, My parents were involved in an RTA a couple of years ago Rear ended on a bridge all on cctv. The car was a modified van which took the impact well bar some scracthes and teh bumper coming loose. Exchanged details and went away. contacted the insurance company who then informed the solictios who then contacted my dad to open an injury claim. They did have some back pain as they were jolted and bearing in mind they were in a van. They were told no win no fee... My dad told them that damage was minimal bumper was loose and they said no problem forms sent out and medical carried out. The third party then disputed liability saying that no accident happened despite my dad having a piece of paper from the third party with all relevant details. My dad then started to recieve threatning letters from the solicitors asking for information regarding the accident and that he would be pursued for costs as the third party were not admitting liability. umerous phone calls and letters then nothing. He is now in reciept of a letter stating that third party has admitted liability and that they are now saying that the third party rolled into him causing no damage... bearing on mind he was on a hill... and that due to this there is no injury and no settlement to be made. My dads solicitors are now forcing him to take a conference call and to speak to a counsel to establish wether or not a claim can be made in court and are threatning him with legal costs if he does not instruct to go to court.. my dad said from the start as above but they took the case on knowing that there was minimal impact and are now looking to shaft my dad with llegal costs from both sides. Can anyone give any advise on this? or what he can do from here? and clearly... there is no such thing as no win no fee..

I have a ulitmate reward account with the Halifax and my boiler broke down on Thursday. Called the helpline and was asked a number of questions. At first I was told that I was not covered by Halifax due to me not having serviced the boiler in the last 12 months, checked the T&Cs and queried and the chap came back and confirmed he was wrong. So, he books the job and advises someone will be in touch Friday morning. I advised that there are two children in the house one being 11 months old and he advised they would be made aware. Friday morning and my wife receives a call stating no one can come out till monday... so I phone back after my wife tells me and even after advising them of the fact that there is a child who is possibly asthmatic and 10 months of age advises there is nothing that can be done until monday. I am very very annoyed. Is there anything that can be done about this?