Jump to content

CS47

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About CS47

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. There is no chance of agreeing anything with the garage. This dealer has been as unco-operative as you could possible imagine. This has been going on since last August when we bought the car and the big end bearing failed on the way home. We had judgment in December in the absence of the defendants. The judge at that hearing suggested if we didn't receive payment of the judgment we should keep the car and sell it. He then applied to have the judgment set aside on the basis that both directors had flu on the date of the December hearing. He succeeded in getting the judgment set aside and the ca
  2. The cars are advertised on the Internet for sale by them, as mainly cars part exchanged to them. As for the car, the subject of the judgment, we paid for it in full back in August, we have the V5 and all the documents, so can we sell the car to offset the debt as the defendant has not paid in full by the due date on the judgment (28/5/13)? The defendants say if we do they will take legal action against us as they own the car. Surely they do not until they pay the judgment? We don't know yet if they have applied for a variation order yet; just that they say they intend to (that was sa
  3. We have a judgment from the small claims court of just under £4,000 against a motor company in relation to a car they sold us. The judgment was due to be paid in full yesterday, and at the bottom of the judgment it says "liberty to defendant to collect the car upon payment of the judgment debt in full". At around 4 pm yesterday £1,000 was paid into our bank account. We then received an email from the company saying they were not in a position to pay as they had had poor sales and were making an application to pay by instalments. This is 25 days after the judgment was delivered on 3/5/13 a
  4. Yes, we have learnt that lesson regarding a credit card. We used a Visa Debit Card which has a chargeback system, which failed because the dealer objected: surprise, surprise! They had a final go at taking the money from him on 27th December and as he confirmed that we had won and that we were going to get the money on the judgment the Chargeback action was ceased! He had made an application to set aside 7 days before that.
  5. Absolutely. In our letter to the Court after the defendant made an application to set aside we stated that this was a cynical attempt to delay matters. At the time, we had no idea what the defendants were going to say was their excuse for not attending as the application form contained no information or supporting evidence. They even said they had emailed the court the day before (the Court hadn't received it of course), but they didn't attach a copy to the application! The judge we had at the first hearing was excellent and understood totally the situation. But the second judge at th
  6. We had judgment and we were going to do all of that. The defendants did not turn up at the hearing, but then made an application to set aside on the basis that they had a good excuse for not attending and that when they rang the court the day before they were told that their case would be considered on the papers if they couldn't come. They didn't say why they couldn't come, but only said on the day of the application that they were both ill with flu on the day of the hearing. The judge didn't consider the strength of their case at all but just accepted that they were ill and misled by the
  7. We have had an independent report, which confirms the big end bearing fault. Toyota confirmed that the car had the same problem in 2010. Apparently this was repaired outside of the Toyota network, but has obviously recurred. The defendants are still persisting in their main defence that we caused the fault on the way home by driving too fast on the motorway. When my husband spoke to the car company the day after purchase he was asked about how he had driven it home. My husband completely honestly said it was a Monday night, there was nothing on the road and he may have reached speeds
  8. The car was described as: 60,000 miles, FSH, 12 months AA Warrangy, supplied by Main Dealer. We part exchanged our Golf, and that was described as "Supplied to us by a Main Dealer" too. So we challenged him to provide the name of the Main Dealer of the Toyota Celica. He refuses, even though the judge gave directions for him to do so. It developed a major fault (failure of big end bearing) on the day of purchase. On motorway on the way home we noticed a loud noise and took it to Toyota the next morning. So we are putting forward our case as: not of sufficient quality, durability
  9. Sorry Andy. There are just so many issues in this case that I thought it was better to keep them separate. But I will keep them together.
  10. The first page of the duplicate service book, where it has the originating garage, that is incorrect - it is a completely made up garage, different area of the country. The first two Toyota services are the wrong garage, different area of the country, and another Toyota one further on is the wrong garage. The rest of the stamps are of garages or MOT centres that have done MOT tests on the car. There is only one detail that is correct: one of the mileages of the service accords with the mileage of that particular service on the original. All the dates are wrong. He justifies it on the
  11. We have a dispute with a motor company ongoing in the Small Claims Court. The advert for the car said FSH. When we came to collect the car we were told that the original service history book had been lost and we were provided with a "duplicate service history". We took the car to Toyota with the mechanical problems on the day after purchase and they produced a printout that didn't match with our "duplicate service history". A few months later we found the name of the previous owner in documents. We wrote to her asking for information about the car and she sent us the original serv
  12. That is helpful, thanks. But presumably that means that it is not going through allocation again?
  13. About it going back to allocation. I have just opened the post and it is to be relisted in Small Claims Court for a two hour hearing on 3rd May!
  14. I am not sure about that, as the judge said the case would be listed for re-hearing as soon as possible. The defendants didn't turn up on 14/12/12. But they had submitted a defence. The judgment was given just "On hearing the Claimant and in the absence of the defendant". Is that a default judgment? Do we go back to allocation? I agree, it should not be complicated, but the defendant is making it so. But the main thing is we just are so stressed by it that we feel we need professional help.
  15. It was also sold with an AA 12 month warranty and so-called "peace of mind". The advert said we could take the car to any garage in the UK under the warranty, which is why we just took it to the nearest Toyota Garage. The AA said that as it happened on the day of purchase it was a "point of sale" problem, so they couldn't help.
×
×
  • Create New...