Jump to content

chomerly

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About chomerly

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Bexleydave: This isn't fraud at all. Banks and credit card companies all change their T&C's and only notify you of an update. If they so wished, they could add clauses to those terms and conditions that would be of a greater disadvantage to us. And who would know? How many people do you know that actually read them in their entirety? Like the judge in the above article states, in relation to T&C's, the use of "I didn't read them" is used all the time. It is no defense in these cases and it has shown here. Terms & conditions in contracts are ALWAYS negotiable up until one party disagrees. If there is a term you don't agree with then you are within your rights to amend it and send off/back for consideration. If a company sends you goods or provides services afterwards, if those goods or services are dependant upon the T&C's, then an agreement has been made between two parties and the provider is bound to honour them.
  2. If the intercooler pipe wasn't fixed properly then this would mean your engine was running at a higher temperature than it should have been while still trying to boost. That turbo would have been cooking over time which would have resulted in the seals failing. I know enough about turbo's to know that they never just blow without any sort of tell tale warning. Common symptoms are either a loud high pitched noise, or a sound that seems foreign to the normal behaviour of the car and you only here when accelerating or, they allow oil to bypass the seals which burns off through the exhaust which in turn emits a blue'ish smoke which can be clearly seen. Something like that will ALWAYS show up in an emissions test. I'm surprised to read that the didn't notice, or get, any severe smoking coming from the exhaust and equally surprised that there were no strange noises coming from the turbo. Especially after the first "bang" as you put it. And for the mileage of your car, your turbo is only just about over 1/2 of its normal working life. As far as i'm aware, Audi don't even check turbo's on their vehicles until around 75,000 miles as its about then that the bearings in them start to show play in the end float and they recommend replacing them at 100,000 miles. I'm in two minds here. Either you have omitted something that you didn't take notice of to begin with and put it down to the normal behaviour of the car, or Something hadn't been done correctly at the repair centre which caused this huge failure. Your only move here is to get an independent vehicle inspection done. I'll tell you now, they are not cheap. But, it should reveal what work ADR would have had to have done in order to repair your vehicle. To get the ball rolling, request a copy of the repair estimate from your insurance company, a repair log from ADR and their final repair statement. Both should detail the repair work that was required for your car and any extra repairs that they billed for. There should be details of an inspection prior to a repair and it should detail what initial damage there was to the vehicle. Once you have those notes you can then pass them on to the independent vehicle inspector who should be able to see what they would have done to make the repairs and compare it to what they had logged. At the end of the inspection they will give you a written copy for use as evidence should you take this matter to court. Overall, i would argue that the car died in their care after they replaced a part which they are now denying they replaced and in my view it is their responsibility. That being said, it is for a court to decide and if its you versus a company that deals with cars everyday then they are already in the lead in this race. Get an independent vehicle technician on your side though and its going to be a different story altogether. Especially if he concurs with turbo pipe being replaced. Even better if he notes it down as being a new part. Any calls you make to ADR or your insurance company should be recorded from now on. The best way forward however is to get it in writing, using recorded delivery, so that way you have a hard copy of any communications between you.
  3. Perhaps a combined civil case could be made here. I would seriously look at getting together to take this guy to court. Especially if Trading Standards are prosecuting him. Just wait until their case is finished and then you go ahead with your civil claim. The fact that Trading Standards are prosecuting will give your cases much more validity and strength overall.
  4. Ahhh! David Evans. A man that can't admit that the DVLA is failing in its simple duties and is effectively using fraud as a means to get money. Clearly some things have to change. Some may ask why the government hasn't stepped in to deal with this issue. I can name a couple of reasons but primarily, they turn a blind eye to it because the DVLA does make a lot money through the fear and ignorance of peoples' rights as per my original post. I agree with MIKE770 with regards to how the judicial process is run/led within the magistrates courts. There does seem to be a measure of collusion with the prosecution depending on what/who the prosecution is representing. My biggest bugbear is with victim surcharges applied to ALL fines. Regardless of what the fine is for. It could be the DVLA, ONS, TV Licensing, practically any person or incorporated business. The application of victim surcharges on fines for businesses and incorporated businesses shouldn't happen yet any magistrate or judge that finds in their favour will always add it regardless as they have no discretion in deciding when, or if, it should be applied. And this happens even though it is clear on the CPS's website that states, in part, ....... Large retailers or corporations do not come within the definition of victim. There are so many things wrong with the government, governmental departments and agencies, the judicial system, just about every aspect of British infrastructure is basically f**ked. It all needs bottom up reform so that this so-called "democracy" works as it is labelled. In the meantime, WE have to start helping people fight back against agency's like the DVLA otherwise it'll just get worse. I mean, how many people have been screwed over the insurance SORN declarations since that was brought into force? The whole system is a joke.
  5. The woman in question was definitely the court clerk as she had her clip board with a list of names case numbers. Though she overstepped her boundary when telling the gentleman that he would be fined, she was clearly a clerk. There were a number of cases being held that day and the prosecutor could be seen with her case load on the desk. I believe this prosecutor to be quite overburdened and may have 'recruited' the clerk to apply some scare tactics to those of us out in the waiting area.
  6. Hi, I'm not even sure if its worth the attention from the news papers to be honest. The behaviour of the DVLA in how it conducts cases doesn't seem to be an issue in the mainstream media and I have only read a couple of stories similar to those in these sub- forums on online based news sites or small independent papers which have little popularity outside of their individual towns or cities. It amazes me that the financial waste of taking these cases to court in the first place hasn't got the attention it deserves when you consider that the DVLA have lost, or backed out of, more cases than they have won. And by quite some margin. In my opinion, there are only two ways the DVLA process can be forcibly changed. 1) An online petition via the PM's website was created and we had 200,000 or more signatures. Or, 2) If a collective of like minded people that have won their cases, or had them dropped or dismissed, got together and took the case to the high court.
  7. Hi all, Now, this kind of story will have some resonance with other users of this forum. And my contribution is my 4+ month fight with the DVLA for allegedly not notifying them of a change of keeper.. It started back in October when my partner (named driver) received a letter from the DVLA that stated someone was trying to register the car in their name. My partner rang the DVLA to let them know that the car had been sold on eBay back on the 22nd of June (not May as I had mistakenly stated in another thread) and that the V5C was posted to them on the same day as the sale was completed. I can't remember what the reply was but the agent from the DVLA on the phone was taking notes from my partner with regards dates, times etc. A couple of weeks later she got a letter from the DVLA stating that she had failed to notify them of a change of keeper and that a £35 penalty was due, which would increase to £55 if it wasn't paid within 14? Days. At this point, as I was the actual owner of the vehicle and my partner was merely the named keeper for insurance purposes, I took over all the correspondence going back to the DVLA. I notified them that the documents had been sent back to them and that it was unfair for them to hold us responsible for something totally out of our control. There were a few letters sent back and fourth between us but the third letter from them was almost laughable. after telling them that we had done all we reasonably could do with regards to notifying them, they stated that our statement was noted but did not constitute a defence. They had not received any documents so therefore we were liable. So, as to make my position clear, I duly notified them of chapter 30, section 7 of the Interpretations Act 1978. References to service by post. Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. After a couple of weeks we received another letter form them stating that the Interpretations Act is clear in that it refers to documents or letters being delivered rather than merely being sent. I wrote back telling them that they are clearly deluded, and talking nonsense as no where in that section if the act does state anything like they were suggesting. I also included the act again and asked them to carefully read it just so they can be clear. Eventually after another letter from them, I wrote back telling them that I was tired of these wasteful exchanges and that their only option was to take the matter to court as I was refusing to enter in further discourse on this matter. I even added that any more correspondence sent by myself to them would result in an hourly charge 0f £6.50 per hour which would include printing and postage costs. After a couple of weeks i received another letter from them stating that this issue was going to court and that i should receive a summons shortly. Low and behold, roughly 2 weeks later a court summons dropped through the door. So with my partners date in court set, which was yesterday, I began to get some nice little facts together about the DVLA. I first started with a freedom of information request that I placed back in December. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/number_of_missed_acknowledgement I asked the DVLA how many V5C documents were received by them between 2010 - 2012 and how many acknowledgement letters were sent out on response within those same years. The reply I received was quite shocking really. The DVLA had no specific records of the amount of V5C's that they received but took a sample (85%) and gave figures out. Now, these figures still don't add up by their own account yet people are prosecuted for not following up on these acknowledgement letters with the DVLA after 14 days. Better still, there is no legal requirement for the DVLA to issue one and this leaves a wide open door for all sorts of abuses to go on. Another freedom of information request was printed which is a little different in how the case came about, but the process in how the summons was made by the DVLA is the same. In this case, the SORN declaration was made but acknowledgement was received. This led to the summons being issued against the person named in the FOI request and i believe the person was acquitted as a result of his research. So, armed with the letters received from the DVLA and the letters sent by me, and also the FOI information, i went to court. The first thing that struck me was the amount of people waiting to have their day in court for issues the same as i was having or for SORN issues. The clerk of the court was who amazed me though. She was going around asking people their names and how they wanted to plead. One gentleman was there for a different case that was being dealt with in the same court room. She asked him why he was there and he said that it was because he had his car clamped by VOSA, because it had no tax, even though it was parked on a private road. She, and i was stunned by this, said to him "well it is an offence so you are guilty and will be fined today". I sh*t you not, that was a clerk of the court telling someone that she had never met before, and whom had no idea of the case, telling someone they are guilty. Whatever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty? Anyway, i approached the clerk and told her my partners name. She asked why i was there and i told her that i am the partner of the defendant and that i was there to represent her in court. The clerk said that they (the magistrates) may not hear my defence as the summons was in my partners name. I stated that everyone was entitled to representation, i am the partner of the defendant and that i was the owner of the car which relates to this case. The clerk said that she would ask and would get back to me. After around 15 minutes, the clerk emerged from the court and called my name out. I approached her and as i did so she stated that the case had been dropped. I asked why it had been dropped and she said that she didn't know. I asked what i should do and she advised me that i could leave and a letter from the court detailing the case and the verdict would be sent to me after a few days. RESULT! I didn't stop there though. After speaking to the clerk i sat down with other people who were going through similar situations and gave them the FOI requests, and some notes about the human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the interpretation act. I asked them to read it, understand it and pass it on to the next DVLA victim. My advice to anyone dealing with the DVLA is to always refute their claims if you have done everything by the book. Always record any conversation you have with them regardless of how trivial it may seem and always, always attend court if you are summonsed. After what i saw yesterday, i can definitely say without any sort of undue bias that the DVLA rely on you not knowing your rights, your ignorance of the law, and not knowing your responsibilities within law. This is how they get away with their unscrupulous behaviour and command huge fines. Always, always use the Interpretations Act 1978 Chapter 30 Section 7 as your defence when important documents such as V5C's/V60's and SORN notifications are sent by post and lost by either Royal Mail or the DVLA. Hopefully, you will succeed like i did.
  8. I'm having the same issue as most on here. Sold the car last May, got a letter in October demanding a fine, rang to say that the car had been sold and that I had sent the V5C the same day as the buyer collected the car. I got another letter not long after asking for the details of the new owner (which I don't have) and also demanding £55 for the privilege of not taking me to court. Wrote back giving them a printout of the auction (eBay) and advised them that I no longer have the details of the buyer as that information was on the remainder of the V5C document which was sent to them. I got a reply a couple of weeks later stating that it is my responsibility to contact them for about an acknowledgement letter within 14 days. Basically, the back and fourth between me and the DVLA has resulted in me being summonsed to court. And that day is tomorrow. I'll let you know in a new thread the result. All I can say is that if I lose, I'll be putting in an appeal straight away.
  9. I figured i would update this thread as i had forgotten to do it initially after the last update. After the phone call conversation i had with the Comet representative, i awaited the letter that she said she would send which would detail our conversation. And after waiting the obligatory 4 weeks i had received nothing. It's not surprising that i haven't received anything from them as they were obviously not going to accept any sort of reliability. The annoying thing is that after the repeated repairs, i'm still left with a bill of insurance for covering the machine (which i felt was necessary to take out as a result) and a washing machine that i had no confidence in. Today, which hasn't really come as a surprise considering this machines history, the machine has decided to stop working again. I have no idea what the problem is this time but the behaviour seems the same as the previous one. I will report on it as soon as i have a definitive answer. All i can say at this point is DO NOT BUY one of these machines. I used to believe that Indesit were one of the best manufacturers of washing machines, which is why i bought one along with other Indesit appliances, for reliability and quality and i have been proven very, very wrong indeed. I don't about you but if my machine does not qualify under the category of inherently faulty then i do not know what does.
  10. Hi, I need some advice on the possibility of getting a refund for payments taken by the Child Support Agency. It has recently come to light that my ex partner had made a claim under a pseudonym comprised of her middle name and her mothers maiden name. My case goes back to 2002 where i was contacted by the CSA for maintenance payments for my child that i was already looking after and paying towards. It caused a huge row between me and my ex and i made sure that i complied with the CSA as much i could and i was assured that i would receive my money back should it found that i was fulfilling my duties as a father financially. This went on for some time and i was being stung for the maximum rate applicable for a few months up until i was made redundant. I had gone through a couple of different jobs over the next two years after losing my job where this all started and they never had the chance to catch up with me and to be honest, i was glad that i hadn't had to deal with them. Anyway, late last year they got in touch with me stating i owed them a little over £2000 and that they wanted to know my work status. I replied to them that i didn't owe anything like that and that, if anything, they owed me for money that wasn't even due. They sent me the details of whom the money was supposed to be paid to and i couldn't believe it when i read that the claimant on file was in fact my ex but she was using her middle name and the maiden name of her mother. In fact, the only truthful thing on the paperwork i had received was her date of birth, my sons name and his date of birth. I replied to them telling them that i had no knowledge of whom the name of the parent was, other than it was a combination of her middle name and mothers maiden name, and that the only correct piece of information on the paperwork was my sons name and d.o.b. I even informed them that even though me and my ex had split, i was still living in the home up until my son was 8 or 9 years old and that i was paying bills in the house as normal. It may also be worth mentioning that she was also benefit cheating and was claiming as living as a single parent. The realisation of how far this could have gone had only hit home when i was reading the paperwork that had been sent by the CSA. Since giving the CSA this information i have heard nothing from them since February this year. In fact, as far as i know they haven't even bothered to investigate my ex and the fraudulent claims that she made against me and the benefit. My question is, what is the likelihood of reclaiming the money that was taken by the CSA, from the CSA, for something that was untrue and what can i do to stop them from pursuing me? I'm not even sure that i could report my ex to the police for fraud and whether it would even be investigated. I'd like to get my money back and actually use it for my sons benefit. Especially now that he's going to start college this year.
  11. Hi all, I'm not sure on whether this is in the correct category and i apologise in advance if it is not. I bought a two and three seat sofa from SCS in 2010 and took delivery of them on the 8th of September 2010. At the same time we also took out extra cover for accidental damage as the salesman said it covered everything for 5 years. In around April of this year, one of the seat cushion covers had started to separate at the seam on the three seater sofa and this also happened on the back cushion for the two seater sofa. We called SCS who then gave us the number for the company Guardsman and we followed the process for making a claim for a repair. After about two weeks or so, Guardsman had called to say that there was an inspector available and if it was ok for him to come and inspect the sofa. We confirmed it was and a few days later he came and made the inspection. After around 8 weeks, we received a letter from guardsman stating that the damage was not covered under the policy we had as the 'independent inspector' had said the fabric had frayed and it was not because the stitching had come apart. Now, i was quite miffed at this because to me, there is no difference. The point at which each of these cushions have split both originate at the seams of the fabric. The other thing is, Guardsman stated that it is in the policy documents that we get along with the certificate, stating that 'our' damage is not covered. We never received any policy documents or certificate and to be honest i wasn't expecting to as i thought the extra insurance paid to SCS was so that they themselves would repair any damage. I'm now left with two sofas that one has no back cover and the other has one seat cushion without its cover. I contacted SCS via their website a couple of weeks ago and i've allowed the minimum 10 days in order to get a reply but i still haven't had one. Can anyone part with some advice on what i can do from here? I haven't gotten back in touch with guardsman yet and i thought it would be best to get a broader range of advice first.
  12. Well here's the update. Just received a call from someone at Comets head office. Probably public relations of some sort. She basically said that because it couldn't be proven that there was a manufacturing defect at the time of sale, and that the manufacturer hasn't reported any issues which would give them a reason to repair or replace the machine, they would not be refunding the cost of the warranty plan i have taken with Domestic and General. She also made a point of telling me that they had not had the opportunity they requested to inspect the machine on the previous occasions that it needed to be repaired. It's funny they say that they requested the repair when in my initial email i said that i was happy for them to come and inspect it at there convenience. The only other thing she said with h regards to that was that the inspection would cost £69. It was this charge that i had issue with which is why they never came to inspect the machine in the first place. I said that regardless of whether or not there is/was a manufacturing defect present at the point of sale, it still does not excuse the fact that this machine has needed to be repaired 4 times in less than 2 years. I also said that the sales of goods act states goods must be 'fit for purpose' and be expected to last a reasonable length of time and in no way can anyone consider this machine to have lasted a reasonable length of time when both the motor and the module have now had to be replaced twice. She basically repeated what she had said earlier and i asked her to put it in writing. I wasn't going to waste my time arguing a point that was obviously not going to make a slight difference in the script she must have been reading from. So that's where i am at. They are basically saying what Indesit have said which is a polite version of say off.
  13. Isn't it the case that you can reject the goods for a full refund and the seller (Comet) has to prove that there is no fault rather than the buyer (Ronny) proving there is one? I'm still learning.
  14. Thanks buddy. I'll send an email later on and as soon as i get a response i will let you know what, if any, the outcome is.
×
×
  • Create New...