As far as I'm aware, when you bought the car you received good title to it and if the finance co want the remaining money, they should get it from the guy who sold it to you. Why not phone up the financial ombudsman and see what they think?

Your rights are under Sale of Goods Act and if the tyres turn out to be below minimum, then speak to the trader and find out what he is going to do. You may still have the option to reject the car if you can show that the car is not of satisfactory quality in that it is not safe.

I presume that the chargeback referred to is S75 of the Consumer Credit Act? If so then the transaction has to be over £100 and in this case the CC co is jointly liable to breaches of contract. You would have a hard time proving what was said on the phone, without having taped it. I think it is best that you write to them and claim that the contract was misrepresented (the guaranteed buyer bit) and request a refund. Also report this to your local trading standards office.

Not had similar problems, but you would have the opportunity to reject the car under the Sale of Goods Act. I think this is the best option as the car is new and obviously not of satisfactory quality. If that's what you want to do I have a few tips for what to put in the letter.

JHave you approached the police about the forgeries?

If you can link the leaks to a bigger issue then you may be justified in stating that the problem first manifested itself after 8 months. You may also be justified in stating that the the faults were there at the time of purchase and therefore you are entitled to a remedy. However, it is possible that these leaks are treated as isolated incidents, and, if so, your chances of winning at court would be slim indeed. I've no doubt that MB would try and argue that they are isolated and that there is no inherrent fault and that they did not consider the leak problem to be bad otherwise they would have made the repair mandatory. The one thing you have in your favour is that your claim will fall under the maximum for small claims and you don't have to instruct a solicitor. And expenses are limited if you are not successful. MB will have a large and well paid legal team and access to all sorts of experts. And even if you win, that doesn't automatically mean they will pay you... So, if you can get a report linking your fault back to the condition of the car at purchase, who would be willing to attend court, then it might be worth a try, but you'd be up against a formidable opponent and your case, like your car, isn't watertight;) If you are in England, I believe that the courts there have a mandatory mediation process so you might find that useful and less combatative. Ifyou paid anything on a credit card (>£100) then complain to the card provider then the financial ombudsman. If it is on HP then complain to the HP Co. as they are the actual owners until the final payment.

Some cars have more faults than others I'm afraid. My spring broke and I had only done 40,000 miles. It also depends on how it has been driven in the past. The previous keeper might have thrashed it for its 29000 miles before your daughter bought it. Unless there is still a warranty on it I don't think she would have a hope, legally speaking, of getting anything out of the car dealer, if there was one, and no hope whatsoever if the seller was private.

Well, mitigating losses is about keeping them to a minimum. For example, you say that there was a hire car, was this an ordinary car; the smallest that you could practically have used. Or was it a luxury executive model? Mitigating losses here would be taking the option of the smaller car and not the larger. I would think about this when considering expenses because if expenses are awarded then it may go in your favour if you can show mitigation. Going from what you said you may have a fair chance in this one if the car was bought from a dealer who was the previous keeper and who should have carried out the remedial repairs. I assume that from the age and mileage this was not a cheap car, so taking all of that into account I think that you can expect a higher level of quality than most buyers of second hand vehicles. That said, it has been 3 years since you bought it... You mention that the fault occurred just outside warranty. How long had you had it then and how much use did you have of it? These are things a court would look at.

Actually this type of thing is Reg 5 - Misleading Action (describing it as one thing when it is another) Also your Grandma would have to have had her economic decision making affected by this. In other words, would she have bought it had it not been described as brass?

Do they have a court order to repossess? Is your agreement a regulated agreement under the Consumer Credit Act? If so you can invoke their complaints procedure and then complain to the financial ombudsman. In the meantime it may be worth giving the ombudsman a call for some advice initially. I'm no debt counsellor so I'm not sure what the position is when you are bankrupt, but certainly under normal circumstances that cannot repossess your car without an order from the court and if you haven't missed any payments then they certainly have no right. Maybe speak to a debt counsellor to see if the bankruptcy is having a bearing and definitely speak to the ombudsman.

I think you may be jumping the gun somewhat. The first thing to establish is whether you have any rights in the first place before you start to think about court. Lord Denning famously said that buyers of second hand cars should expect that faults will occurr sooner ot later and in the absence of an express warranty, they will have no recourse. You see, the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act are for new goods and when considering second-hand goods one must take into account the age, price paid and condition of the goods. You can't expect the same levels of quality etc with second hand as you would with new. Your problem would be to demonstrate to a court that the car didn't conform to contract 3 years ago (at the time of sale). If you are relying on the fact that it is well known that cars like yours leak then why hasn't there been a product recall and why are the courts not stuffed with litigants? I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh, I just want to demonstrate the size of montain you have to climb in order to win your case. If you do still wish to proceed then you should Have the car examined by an independent (the AA or an engineer, not another garage who may be seen as a competitor) Get a written report and send a copy to the dealer asking for a repair (this report should state that the vehicle was faulty at the time of purchase) otherwise you will start court proceedings. Only once you have done this should you consider what damages to claim. Start now though by listing all expenses and please consider whether you have mitigated your losses as a court would be looking to see that you have.

What does your brother think? He is, after all a legal professional and most of us here are enthusiastic amateurs! As you probably know already, you can request a repair and if that isn't successful you may still be able to reject.

What is it that doesn't always work that way?

The deposit was to cover the retailer in the event of something like this happening. They are entitled to keep the deposit, but have no means by which they can pursue you for the rest. Its just sabre rattling on their part. If the deposit was large enough I would be thinking of asking them for some of it back and you may have more of a legal right to a partial refund that they would to get more money from you. It may be an unfair term that they keep all of the deposit when thare are steps for them to mitigate their losses (sell the dresses, return them to the supplier). You could write and say that keeping all of the deposit amounts to punitive damages and that the term in the contract that says they can is unfair and a breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs 1999. Tell them that you may raise an action in the Small Claims Court and that they will have to demonstrate to a judge/sheriff that they are entitled to the money. For the price of a stamp you may get some money back.

Probably best to check with the administrator, if one has been appointed

As Viking Direct are a B2B company, you may have contracted out of your SOGA rights in the terms and conditions. It would be worth checking. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 businesses can do this, but this is subject to a fairness test. Consumers cannot contract out of the provisions of SOGA, but if you ticked the terms and conditions you probably agreed that you were buying for business. I think Makro might do this too.

Is she looking for some form of redress? A return of the consultation fee would be the only redress she may be able to obtain as far as I can tell. Maybe there is a Vets Govening Body that will accept complaints if the redress she is looking for is an apology. Maybe the Vet had other causes to suspect cancer and that the tooth was a symptom of this?

Seems to me that when one buys software they don't actually own it, they are buying a licence to use it.

When I was a PC World Manager we (managers and staff) got absolutely no training in SOGA and consumer rights. I said to my GM that I would run a small session one Sunday and I was told that I wasn't allowed to! Although this was from the same man who told me that my job should have priority over my wife and new born child! I left soon after...

If you didn't get your statutory copy of the agreement at the time of signing and were not provided with the correct documentaion prior to signing or the paperwork is not in the prescribed form the the agreement is improperly executed. The effect of this is that only a court can enforce the agreement and it will take into account all circumstances such as consumer detriment. It appears that your are at a disadvantage in not being given all of the required info, nor was the info you had in the proper manner. It would be unlikely that this agreement could be enforced in my opinion. You don't have the right to cancellation if it was signed on trade premises unfortunately, but you may have the right to withdraw if the agreement hasn't been executed (ie signed by the creditor). If they are accepting your cancellation, but won't return the deposit, then you can invoke their complaints process and go to the Ombudsman. I would write and threaten this because it will cost them about £400 if you take your complaint there and will cost you nothing.

You can reject the car if breaches one of the implied terms of SOGA. In this case you would need to show that it wasn't as described or that it is not of satisfactory quality. In showing that it wasn't as described you would need a written description. Do you have tha advert for example? The other thing to bear in mind is that not everything that was said about the car would constitute a sale by description. For example, if the ad said it did 150 mph, but you have discovered it does only 120, then you wouldn't be able to reject because of that. The description is that which identifies the goods, the mph figure is one of its capabilities. So the description in this case may be make, model, (miles done may not form part of the description in this context) Other statements such as mph as above, or indeed length of MOT, if written in an advert may then become contractual terms and a breach of these would entitle you to damages (not rejection). So for the shortened MOT you would be entitled to the difference these 2 months would have made to the price paid (if any). Same applies to any other descriptions that are contractual terms. Lastly if the description was verbal, then you may want to argue misrepresentation, but this is harder to prove. The quality of the car is tricky. Section 14 of SOGA (satisfactory quality) applies to new goods and when considering second hand goods one must take into account the price paid, age, condition etc. One cannot expect the same level of quality as with new. Furthermore, S14 says goods should be free from minor defects so the handbrake may well be a minor defect, given the age and condition of the car. MOTs are only good for the day they are done on and just because it wouldn't pass now does not make the MOT invalid, nor indeed does it mean that the car in unsafe and therefore another breach of S14. I think the dealer is entitled to wash his hands of it, legally speaking, but is certainly not good customer service. I don't think you can reject it based on the issues reported, but if you want to try you should put the rejection in writing and stop using the car. Did you pay by credit card? If so you could complain to the CC co, but unless you can show a breach of the implied terms of SOGA or a breach of contract generally, then there may be no success here either.

If the agreement is unsigned by them you can withdraw from it. In your case when the agreement is signed by Honda, then it is a properly executed and enforceable agreement. Why not ask them for a copy of the executed agreement and see what you get? If it is unsigned then write to them and state that you wish to withdraw from the agreement. This is in the Consumer Credit Act (although I can't remember the section off the top of my head). Or you could write and withdraw now and see if they produce an executed copy (although there would be nothing to stop them signing it now...

The retailers can easily get round "establishing that the goods did conform" because they will have the Manufacturer inspect them (if they themselves are not the M) and their opinion will be taken as gospel. Who is a better expert than the person who designed and maufactured a product? SOGA talks about "establishing" and not "proving" and I think there is a difference in the standard to be met in each of these. So once the retailer has established that the goods conformed, then the poor consumer has to go to the trouble of proving that they didn't.

The question would maybe be whether you had the capacity to contract. Maybe a court would think it not unreasonable that a 17 year old would join a gym and therefore enforce the contract despite the absence of a counter signature. You certainly intended to be bound by the contract in that you paid the fees and attended the gym. In order to get out of the contract you would have to show that it did not comply with all of the formalities (the parental signature), but this is probably there just to ensure that the gym get paid one way or another and not a necessary step like. formalities are things like the proper forms etc for credit agreements. The essentials of a contract are: Consensus (the parties agree on the terms) Capacity (mentally ill, drunk or being a minor reduce your capacity to contract) Intention (you must wish to be bound by the terms) Formalities (discussed above) Must not be illegal (speaks for itself) So, your only chance would be to say that you didn't have the capacity to contract and weren't aware of the consequences of entering into a contract. I don't think this would be persuasive although I think if maybe one of your parents wrote to them and explained that you didn't know what you were doing and that you couldn't pay and that you would go to court if necessary then they may agree a reduced sum. They wouldn't want to be seen taking school children to court.

The remedy is up to the seller to decide under SOGA. So they are within their rights to offer a partial refund. However, I'm assuming that the TV is on HP so SOGA doesn't apply, your rights are found under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973. From memory, the rights are the same, but it would be best to check. You should let the finance company know what is happening as they are, after all, the owners of the TV. You do not own it until you make the last payment. It is really up to them to decide. But bear in mind, if you don't like what they say, you can complain to the Ombudsman.