Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

popeyethesailortam

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    134

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by popeyethesailortam

  1. popeyethesailortam
    Willing to bet everyone out working on that day will be thinking exactly the same thing. They would likely prefer to be home with their families or finishing off their Christmas shopping. So that appointment cannot be construed a unfair.
  2. popeyethesailortam
    Dont happen to be asian perchance?
  3. popeyethesailortam
    When a local shop changes hands would you expect all the staff in there to be sacked and replaced with new ones? Of course not. Why then would it be strange for the sane guys to be working at the same garage.
  4. popeyethesailortam
    A cam belt can let go due to several reasons. A tensioner letting go for instance. As that isn't something that could be foreseen then in the strictest sense I'd say it is pure bad luck and down to the buyer. The threat of action by daddy the solicitor is unlikely. You could immediately point out their illegal actions in driving a car they had bought and not insured. Out of interest what was the car and how much was paid?
  5. popeyethesailortam
    If you read the terms of your insurance carefully. It will likely tell you in the small print they can repair it using panel beating and a couple of large tins of cataloy. Insurers are now repairing far more damage than previously.
  6. popeyethesailortam
    Unless the OPs advert stated warranted miles I'd say the purchaser has little comeback. The vehicle may not have been given a haircut deliberately. It could be down to a faulty speedo head being replaced. Unless the purchaser can prove OP set out to deceive I can't see the courts having much sympathy with a trader. Who should of either made checks prior to sale or supplied the standard customer invoice stating odometer miles can differ from actual miles. Quite frankly sounds a micky mouse dealer if he sources stock of ebay.
  7. popeyethesailortam
    A radiator can burst at any time. The garage couldn't of foreseen it. If they didn't authorise the repair then you have to pay it. You had to give them the chance to mitigate repair costs, ie do the work themselves. They suggested local diagnosis not repair.
  8. popeyethesailortam
    As you say, you accepted the poor finish on the wheels at the time. You had the chance to walk away. You made the decison not to. It may in retrospect be the wrong decision. But as it was yours you have to live with it.
  9. popeyethesailortam
    Is it engine rattle on the hilux?
  10. popeyethesailortam
    A refund after 4 months driving, Not a chance. Unless you had something in writing stating the wheels were to be refurbished prior to getting it you can't claim that. They also gave you the opportunity to reject the car at the time and have the deposit back. You made the decision not to do that, you accepted the used car. Live with it.
  11. popeyethesailortam
    The funniest one I ever saw was a car locked up just outside of the gates of a local Arnold Clark. They were obviously trying to shirk their responsibilities about a water leak. Sign on the window of the car asked anyone viewing for some goldfish as the car was so damp inside. Detailing a list of Arnolds excuses about faults.
  12. popeyethesailortam
    I would of thought a deposit on a car would be non transferable. At the point you ordered the car and left the deposit, the trader had to remove that car from sale thus losing potential sales on it. He also has to prepare the car for retail eg service, MOT and valet. Personally, If it were me I'd of tried to find a car to suit you at your new budget, just for the sake of customer service. But in these days of small margins and difficult trading I can understand the traders stand.
  13. popeyethesailortam
    Tiredness due to having to get up 4 times a night to pee!
  14. popeyethesailortam
    If your getting any offer of help at all rip it out of his hands before he changes his mind. All the faults you mention are commiserate with the age and price of the car. It is after all 10 years old and less than 10% of its original value at under £1k. The law is there to protect both you and the trader. It does recognize that clutches are consumable items. If it has lasted 4000 miles it can easily be argued that it was fit for purpose at the time of sale. It may even be a linkage or master/slave cylinder issue and not the clutch. The rear suspension should not require a new back axle. Personally I think this MOT garage is trying to rip you off there. Tyres and wipers, again consumables. I know its not what you want to hear, but I personally doubt you will get any more than he has offered at court. I genuinely believe if he wished to defend it he would likely not have to pay anything. Also if you do go down the court route you have to put the car off the road until any decision is made.
  15. popeyethesailortam
    Prolix gives excellent advice. OP while you are entirely within your right to pursue for all your money back. Remember during that time the trader has your £500. You may not get the result you would like in court. DSR's would not apply to used cars for the following reasons. It would be classed as a one off item, the trader doesn't have another one to sell if a customer wanted to buy it. Also as prolix points out, DSR's do not apply to businesses that do not ordinairily conduct distance sales. I spoke to trading standards on Friday and they came back with this advice today after speaking to their legal team. Try and speak to the dealer and offer a reasonable amount by way of an apology for inconvenience. That way you get the majority of your money back with no further hassles.
  16. popeyethesailortam
    OP mistakes can happen and I think you have got this entirely out of proportion. If you did take this to court trying to claim losses I believe you will lose. The law expects you to take reasonable steps to reduce any losses you might incurr. I'm sure you could of got a set of plates made up locally to get the vehicle through the test. The poor pupil who missed her test because of it. Again the court would think you should of had adequate provision to provide a different car if the one she was to use failed its MOT. It may of failed on something entirely different eg ball joint, what would you do then? As for enforcing your staff to tell pupils not to buy from a certain dealer. Like hammy I think that is way over the top and may even leave yourself open to legal challenges from Arnold Clark.
  17. popeyethesailortam
    Did you buy the car in Cumbria? It wasn't a dealer near Penrith operating from a famryard by any chance was it? edit sorry just reread op post.
  18. popeyethesailortam
    With all due respect nagasis, the link you give just says that the refund was returned by the dealer without any court order. probably due to not wanting the adverse publicity. I stand by my statement which is based in real life experience within the motor trade, that used vehicles can be considered to be 'one off items' and as such exempt from DSR's in many cases due to the fact they are just that-one off. A dealer may well have 100 cars on his lot. But he can honestly say he only has eg 1 focus with 45k miles and that particular trim level.
  19. popeyethesailortam
    He has no chance of getting a case against you. Did the car start and drive away when he collected? Yes. A cam belt can break at any time due to numerous reasons eg a water pump bearing collapsing. You had no way of foreseeing this. Personally I'd reply telling him that and that you have no interest in discussing it further and if he wants to take you to court you will defend it vigorously and not to contact you again.
  20. popeyethesailortam
    I'm a little bit puzzled here Brian, If you didn't want the dealer to hold the vehicle, why then did you place a deposit? I would of thought in most peoples minds that placing a deposit means you do not want the vehicle sold to anyone else? if you were happy for it to remain on sale until you saw it there would be no need to place a deposit. In all fairness most people wouldn't contemplate such a large purchase or leaving a deposit on such an expensive item as a camper without viewing it first. Apologies if this sounds blunt, but DSR's are there to give fair protection to consumers, not to protect people from carrying out actions which most people would consider naive if not rather stupid. The used vehicle is very much a 'one off item' I'm afraid. You could only claim it wasn't if he had more than one of those campers at the exact same miles, price, spec, age etc. I do agree £500 is excessive, but I do believe the trader has acted honestly and in accordance with the law including DSR.
  21. popeyethesailortam
    If you placed the offer and it was subject to an action you were going to carry out then didn't, I can understand the company being less than helpful. Look at it another way. What would you of said had you arrived to inspect the vehicle and found it had been sold despite you leaving a deposit. I dont think recovering the deposit is completely clear cut. Although DSR do cover contracts made over the phone or via email. They dont cover one off or bespoke items, which a used car or camper van is.
  22. popeyethesailortam
    The difference in this case yukiko, is that the car isn't a new car but a 2 year old car. Having only one ignition key doesn't stop it from fulfilling its requirements as a used car.
  23. popeyethesailortam
    The car insurance and its suitability for transporting your child are not reason enough for you to return the car. Carcraft are under no obligation to help and it is doubtful they would evn as a goodwill gesture.
  24. popeyethesailortam
    Bet the paint shop is rubbing their hands with glee! lol
  25. popeyethesailortam
    i completely agree about him overtaking on the left thats what i thought.as well as everyone else i have spoken to.i am prepared to go ahead with it.......court action i mean,and i do believe i would have a case to sue....i am also going to try and find cctv as it should exist as it was in a bus lane.any idea on where i would stand on getting this? I wouldn't rely on that as your defense. You can quite legally overtake on the left in a bus lane or part of a dual carriageway that has different destintions for each lane. After all the purpose of that bus lane is to allow buses to complete their journey faster than cars. That would be impossible if they couldn't go faster than the car held up in traffic on the outside lane.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...