Jump to content

panther12

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

207 Excellent

About panther12

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This topic was closed on 10 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  2. This topic was closed on 10 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  3. This topic was closed on 2019-03-08. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  4. This topic was closed on 2019-03-08. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  5. Although they have lodged an appeal and ticked for a stay of execution of the judgment, until their application has been dealt with and a decision made the judgment remains live and can be enforced. I've not read all the thread but their application for permission to appeal looks rather poor to me. Depending what the judgment said about payment I think I'd have put the pressure back on them and started the ball rolling with enforcement, preferably HCEO if it's above the threashold.
  6. You can do it all online without sending off any v5 and relying on the post. If you want to surrender tax by sale or sorn, to claim a refund you have to do it before the end of month and it's when they receive it. if you post it dvla say on the 29th and they don't receive it till 1st of the month you loose that months refund. That's why doing it online is better cos you get instant notification. And if the last day of the month is a Sunday, I think you can do it online up to 4pm.
  7. You sure this was an actual legal solicitor you saw and not someone soliciting other services!
  8. If it's not too late and you can sense that the hearing is not going well, try to get in that before the hearing you attempted to come to an amicable agreement with rectums but they dismissed any talks of settlement as they wanted the hearing to go ahead regardless to seek full costs. Mention that these cases would ordinarily be allocated and bound by small claims track rules but rectums are well noted for their manipulation of the court system and often allow defended claims that should normally proceed to the small claims track to become stayed without good reason, then months later pop out of the woodwork with threats to withdraw the defence and pay up or they seek to apply for summary judgment with full costs on the indemnity basis, which is not what the small claims was intended but rectums do this to maximise their costs to the full.
  9. I did say it's what they do back in post #32, (although I was out by £100). The defence was based solely on SB so all rectums have to do is show that it's not SB. Their WS in support of their SJ/strike out app and is what the hearing is to decide was posted back in Jan. OP had 7 days before any hearing scheduled to submit any statement opposing their app - so had 6 months to prepare something. OP's best option was to come to some settlement agreement by way of tomlin, which I thought that was what they were doing as I can't see the hearing ending well if a flawed SB defence is all that rectums need to overcome. Even if the judge does adjourn to allow the OP to amend their defence to introduce other issues, there's a good chance the judge will still allow rectum wasted costs for todays hearing as all their preparation and time has been to overcome SB and nothing more as nothing else was pleaded in the defence.
  10. If you think it may be SB then the dates they say the contract entered between defendant & cap1 must be wrong otherwise it can't be SB.
  11. Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 The fact you did an hpi check which showed it to be clear should go in your favour. http://www.carterlaw.co.uk/client-wins-vehicle-repossession-dispute-with-motonovo-finance/
  12. If you've filed the AoS to extend the time to submit defence, if you are 100% certain it's SB I would first write to them pointing out out any debt they claim owining is SB and that will be the focus of your defence to their claim. As they have no prospect of success invite them to withdraw their claim, giving them a timeframe to reply within the time so you don't miss the deadline to file defence.
  13. Auction or not it was advertised that there was a discrepancy in the mileage and if the only issue is the mileage I don't understand why OP is so shocked about it and went ahead knowing there is a discrepancy in the mileage.
  14. I don't believe advisories are a valid reason to reject a car under CRA (unless the items have been described as good) and dealers are not obliged to correct any advisory - only the fail items. The previous advisories haven't been removed and will always be available to anyone who wants to search previous mot history, which is why it's usually a good idea to do that before buying a car and use any unfixed advisories as a negotiation tool. Advisories are subjective (some testers like to flex their power and go to town with the pen and some don't bother) but not a reason to reject. Certain items of the MoT can be subjective and left to the testers own discretion & judgment - I believe vosa take the view that if in doubt a tester should pass & advise. I do think you'll struggle with a rejection under CRA if the only issues flagged up by your own inspection are a faded indicator lens and leak in the flex, which I'm sure for those items the dealer would be happy to correct.
×
×
  • Create New...