Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About david1471

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. little update 28th of January I went through mediation with the trader, we entered a settlement on a few grounds 1. I took much less to end this saga 2. he made quick payment due to court papers and fees needing to put in by 11th feb and cleared funds would be needed. 3. I cancelled court action and returned car documents. he sent cheque very late meaning I would miss dates for court action on entering cheque into bank got them to check it out before depositing, they spotted he put a line through 1 word knowing this would avoid the cheque from clearing but
  2. steampowered I thought if a car was returned within 6 months he would need to prove the car was fit for purpose
  3. trading standards also pointed out he his well known for folding business once he gets court out and he his someone there aware of
  4. going by office of fair trading he broke various laws in the description and claim of the full recon engine and warranty were trading standards main points of evidence.
  5. just to had when trying to get trader to comply to sorting he refused has he states garage done him over and were refusing to honour is warranty with them. after responding to 1st letter he bragged I could go to trading standards they take year and you have not got a car, but made offer of repair but only if I phone him and not by email. I emailed he never responded, trading standards attended he offered repair but never contacted me I made contacted he did collect car under agreement he returned car in 2 weeks and had a mot done by same garage doing the work to prove it fit for purpose. after
  6. there were 2 set asides, I attended the first he did not turn up and judge through it out based on poor excuse and 16 days late in returning application awarded me costs. I never attended 2nd. I thought I had strong case by law now to find out no one follows the laws: my case based on trader claimed car had full re-con engine ,new turbo it did not old engine of ebay with original parts added to engine. car had 5 months tax not the case no tax and has I did not have advert at time I could not prove to trader.(trader told trading standards he went and got tax for me). but never
  7. yes the courts have allowed him the set aside , and returned my case back to stage 1 has long has he put his defence forward and paid court fees and bailiff's costs which he did do. I still have very strong case and now he gave me further evidence by lying on statement of truth for set aside helped by him in his defence statement which are both different stories of what he did in respects of sorting out the car. He first claimed I drove car back 100 miles and now his telling them he collected car, plus I purchased in November now he put October. He claims to have repaired car December but not
  8. he stated on advert in a write up about himself he his independent trader and put nowhere he was ltd company, i.e. at no stage informs buyers he his ltd till he gets problems. He put a statement of truth in for set aside telling 1 story, that has now changed in defence statement guess this will help has he as lied already to courts and can only dig a bigger hole to get out of it.
  9. hi I have now received a defence claim of car trader, he now claims he feels unfair I personally sued him not his ltd company, he says he repaired car and I refused collection and also I threatened his family and now deceased parents. He has gone done line I was advised on the fact he is ltd and wants case moved to his company to allow him wind up his business has he has done on other occasions.
  10. ok guys need some help?? just spoke to courts after defendant failed to comply with judges orders to enter defence and pay costs to bailiff's for charges owed. I was told by court adviser that I need to write to court in couple of days telling them no defence entered judge will then look at case and award it to me again, I pointed out it will give defendant chance to set aside again and he needs to be stopped being allowed to do this. The Clarke said cant he cant do it as many times has he wants so you wont get your money, I pointed out you get your 80 pounds every time so you don't care he re
  11. hi just a little update the 2nd set aside by defendant was a success for him even though he only had word of mouth for evidence and I put supporting evidence forward that proved he lied to courts, judge allowed him to enter new defence and pay enforcement costs I have lost up till now. I learnt a good lesson here don't matter the proof you have backing from trading standards to also say defendant is trading outside law, they will side with crooks always.
  12. I can certainly tell you he cant get away with saying he never claimed the car to be roadworthy/unroadworthy, it would be up to him to no has he would have had to informed you before hand, you need to tow the vehicle has it his not fit for purpose. So by letting you drive vehicle away he claiming its fit for purpose.
  13. hi gone through very similar thing as you, sailor Sam is spot on with his advise. If he wanted to sort your issue he would have done before hand, he will agree to prolong going to court, then not enter defence against your claim, then start using set aside not turn up then enter another set aside. this is happening to me right now. I cant do a thing to stop it but keep hanging in there till the point comes where court say no more your paying. 1 bit of good advice don't use court bailiffs waste of time and money. just a query where did you purchase vehicle, sounds very similar story to min
  14. hi been doing bit of research a lot of people are using the account so far got a martin, Paul and a tony claiming to be owner of cleeveland cars. A scrap yard supplying some of the vehicles for them, 2 garages 1 putting on dodgy mots and other stamping services books and putting work that's not been done like cam belt done. I also noticed there moving cars to another garage called grayland's ltd and selling from there and were also advertising cars belonging to family or a mates car for sale trying to take away consumer rights. I would say there is good chance there linked. I have wrote t
  • Create New...