Not sure why every one derides Trump? Is it because his style is different? After all he is no worse than his predecessor made especially any of the Clintons. If the Clinton cow got elected would people be deriding her the same as they deride Trump? Trump may not be ideal, but in my mind Clinton would have been a whole lot worse! I am also wondering why no one demonstrated when the SA president Jacob Zuma visited as he used to sing on stage that people should be killing the farmers and he used to mimic holding a machine gun doing this? Never mind him being accused of being very corrupt and is still being investigated.

When you submit a complaint to the Ombudsman it does not go anywhere near an Ombudsman and is dealt with by a first tier representative who tries to make a decision. Their decision was incorrect as the person had a minimal knowledge of the CRA 2015. We disputed their findings a requested it be escalated to the Ombudsman as we realised we were not dealing with an actual Ombudsman. A second person in the first tier understood CRA 2015 a lot better and agreed with us. Please remember that we were getting professional advice from a solicitor experienced in consumer law as we had a subscription. Anyway at that point the finance house caved in and agreed to a partial refund at which point we suggested and booked a MCEA technician appointed by the Caravan Club to check the caravan. The dealer refused to allow the inspection and the refund went ahead. I can only advise how we went about our rejection using CRA 2015 to our best advantage to get a full refund. The OP will get all sorts of obstacles placed in their way by the dealer and most of it will involve denying the OP their rights under Consumer law which by the way is a CRIMINAL offence. The OP should be able to able to do it on their own without involving a solicitor. We did use a solicitor initially, but we knew more about consumer legislation than they knew so you need to be very careful as most solicitors are not familiar with consumer law. We never posted our saga as we got a lot of incorrect advice in particular from one individual however we proved them wrong in just about every instance. Also I cannot name the organisation that gave us the legal advice.

We agree on something!

That is correct as I used CRA 2015 to our full advantage and the dealer/finance company could not argue against legislation. We were up against the dealer, the finance company and also the Financial Ombudsman who initially sided with the finance house until we pointed out the specific legislation. From time of rejection until getting a full refund plus compensation took about 4 months. BTW here is a tip for the OP. Get an independent AWS or MCEA technician to do a report on the motorhome as soon as possible. Cost will be about £100 for the report, but this can be recouped and would stand up well in court. Also a request for copies for all documentation from the dealer regarding repairs may also help as the dealer would keep records as they have the claim for warranty repairs from the manufacturer.

As said the unit may still be within the waiting period. However under CRA 2015 section 9, 10 & 11 the consumer can probably still reject the unit as per section 19(6) which is what we successfully did with our rejection and using advice from an expert consumer solicitor. However even though we may disagree it is still essential that as soon as possible the OP write a letter rejecting the unit!

I am sorry but as per section 22 of CRA 2015 that is incorrect as you have six months from time of delivery to reject however after the first 30 days you need to give the supplier one chance at repair before requesting a replacement or rejection for a full refund. The same section covers the waiting period in clause 6. The OP has had several repeat faults in the first 6 months and at each fault the waiting time is extended plus I am sure there is six months from the date of the repair so that specific repair is covered for another six months. I covered the waiting period etc in an earlier post as it was used successfully by us to reject a £33k caravan at 11 months and get a full refund plus some serious compensation. The short term right to reject should still be in place even though the unit is over a year old.

There should be no risk using clause 9, 10 and 11 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to initially reject the motor home. The OP needs to write a letter to the dealership stating that they want to reject the vehicle. I suggest that the OP keeps the letter brief, but bullet pointing the issues with the motorhome and stating that the motor home does not conform to the clauses mentioned which is why it is being rejected. This letter needs to be done as soon as possible giving the dealer 7 days in which to respond as the OP does nto wnat the vehicle repaired any more. Once they have done this step then if the dealer refuses the rejection at that point clauses 19 & 20 of the CRA 2015 can be used and we can offer further advice. Until the OP has handed the dealership the rejection letter there is nothing any of us or any highly paid solicitor can done to enforce clauses 19 & 20 of the CRA 2015. TBH there should be no need to use a solicitor in this case. The OP has indicated on more than one occasion that in the first 6 months multiple faults occurred and many were repeat faults resulting in the time period being extended due to the waiting time and possibly the 6 month time period may still be in force today. As it is a motor vehicle unfortunately there probably will be a deduction however the OP can claim for compensation which can make up the difference.

There seem to be many repeat faults that occurred within the first 6 months. under CRA 2015 if you reported a fault in month 5 there is a waiting period until the fault is repaired to the satisfaction of both parties so if the repair takes a month, the 6 month time period from date of delivery is suspended plus that specific repair now has a new 6 month time period on it. A bit complicated but it works in your favour. Our caravan was rejected at 11 months and in effect was still within the 30 day period for rejection.

Maybe I never put it across correctly. As the OP allowed it to go as far as court by not replying to DCA, the judge may require the OP to pay court charges for wasting court time, but not the amount demanded by the DCA. Note that I said "may" and not will.

Congratulations on your win. Hope you find a decent replacement.

Please inform me why I am wrong?

The vehicle was delivered on 30th November 2017 so is covered by Consumer Rights Act 2015 so not sure why you state it is not covered by CRA 2015 and also why you have mentioned the Limitations Act?

Not according to legislation as that was a direct quote from a government UK website. Maybe one of us is getting getting mixed up therrefore if you could post a link to this in the CRA 2015 I would be grateful.

The creditor is not making the claim, a DCA is making the claim as they have bought the debt. If requested the DCA needs to show that there was a contract between the OP & Talk Talk. This could have been obtained in the Prove It letter if it had been sent right in the beginning. Once a debt is being disputed it has to go back to the original creditor in this case Talk Talk. The DCA cannot make a claim if the debt is disputed. No need for OP to demonstrate that they have never moved etc etc if they have requested a copy of the contract and the DCA is unable to produce it or if the DCA do produce it and it shows a different address and signature then it will go no further. The application should also have a DoB on it. Lowells were fishing and when the OP never denied the debt, Lowells assumed that they had found the correct person. BTW if the OP sends off the Prove it letter and asks for a copy of the contract but it still goes to court, they may be able to claim compensation from Lowells.

They will be if you recall the DD!

I think you are confusing two things here. The court will not enforce the debt on you however the court may more than likely make you liable for court charges for wasting their time if it went to court as you had ample opportunity to send off the "prove it" letter. Sadly by ignoring their demands you have made it worse for yourselves. Get that letter off to Lowels SAP and get proof of posting which costs nothing.

Here is a very brief synopsis of some your rights under Consumer Rights Act 2015. 1 Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale). 2 Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description. Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety. 3 It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract. 4 If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances) 5 For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement). Food for thought anyway!

The OP bought the vehicle from Mercedes Portsmouth but the vehicle came from Mercedes Blackburn. Mercedes Blackburn in writing stated that the vehicle would have a MOT, but this did not happen. However the selling dealer Mercedes Portsmouth should have checked that the vehicle had a MOT for longer than 9 months. Mercedes Portsmouth are the selling dealer and not Blackburn or Mercedes themselves therefore the issue is with Mercedes Portsmouth and no one else as your contract is with them. At a stretch under CRA 2015 this would be an inherent "fault" and the vehicle could be rejected as the vehicle is not as described and was not fit for purpose. The problem here is the losses you have suffered and proving any as you do not want to claim off the insurance company. The vehicle now has a MOT so is roadworthy again and in the meantime you never collected any tickets that you know of. You may have to write this one off to one of life's experiences.

Does the dealer's name start with "M"? Is the vehicle on HP because if it is then the contract is between the finance company and yourself. In order to get a better idea of how we can help you can you please state the repairs in chronological order with dates highlighting repairs that were repeated repairs. We went through the rejection process with a 11 month old caravan which was eventually accepted for rejection at 15 months. We got a full refund plus compensation as we had written proof and photos. Hopefully I can help you along the way.

When the vehicle is ready for collection, maybe it can be checked by an independent person? Personally I would not be happy with filler being used as this can probably be seen straight away when trading in the vehicle and you will get a knocked down price.

Get some sort of written confirmation from Talk Talk that the debt is not yours. If it ever goes to court and the magistrate finds that you did nothing to deny or confirm the debt, you may end up with court charges so be careful. Have you written to Lowell advising them that the debt is not yours? If not you cannot even claim harassment. A simple letter stating that the debt is not yours is all that is needed. If you email then they have your email address which may not be a good thing.

You state that the car was stored in a garage so how did Newlyns know it was in the garage?

Are you sure it is your insurance company contacting you and not a claims company wanting to make a quick buck? To make sure phone your insurance company using the number on the original literature you got when you took out the insurance and not the number on the recent letter.

You need to be issued with court summons and then not to bother to go to court before your credit file is affected. We did Vodaphone many years ago and had a similar issue and will not go anywhere near them again. Despite us proving that they were in the wrong we still had to pay nearly £800. Unfortunately no CAG then.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 you can claim a full refund. Put it in writing to them so that you have paper trail and do not let them fob you off. Insist on a full refund and nothing else.