Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • 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 case was re-heard on 3/5/13. We won and he was supposed to pay in full by 28/5/13. The judgment order says at the bottom: "liberty to the defendant to collect the vehicle upon payment of the judgment debt in full". We did reject the car, which the dealer would not allow. He refused to allow us to return the car and so we have had it sitting at our local Toyota garage since last August. The judge in giving judgment decided that he had breached the SOGA act: the car was not of suitable quality and durability, fit for purpose or as described (it was misdescribed in the advert and the "duplicate" service history was faked). He is now being prosecuted by Trading Standards and my husband is a witness in that case. I am just giving this detail as background info, so you know what we are dealing with! At the eleventh hour he says he can't pay it all and wants to pay in instalments. He now also says we can't sell the car to offset the debt. He has only paid the £1,000 to be appearing to be trying to pay. He has made no definite offer of when the rest will be paid. We don't think he has any intention of paying the rest. Surely we are the legal owners of the car, having the V5 and having paid for it in full in August? I have done a bit of research and it seems to me from what I have read that the legal owner of the car is he/she who has paid for it. Anyway, we have instructed a HCEO company and it is going forward now. He has not made an application yet to vary judgment or any sort of formal application to pay by instalments.
  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 said for the first time yesterday, 25 days after the judgment). Can we still transfer it to the High Court whilst they are making an application for a variation order, if they are? My husband is in touch with a HCEO company, so hopefully they will be able to proceed.
  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 and no mention has been made of this up until now. We have said we are vigorously opposing any application to pay by instalments. They have 28 cars up for sale at the moment and clearly have assets. Until the defendants pay we still own the car and we have said we intend to sell it for what we can get to offset the debt. The car is a non-runner and not worth very much. We now have an email from the defendant saying that we can't sell the car and if we do they will take us to court! Up until yesterday we were intending to get the judgment transferred to the High Court for enforcement (thinking that the defendants were clearly not going to pay). Now that they have paid £1,000 and are seeking to pay the rest by instalments, can we proceed as we originally intended? Are we entitled to sell the car to offset the debt? What is our best way of proceeding?
  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 the application just accepted anything the defendants said, which was such a shock. But she did say that the case should be reheard quickly and unbelievably we have a date of 3rd May! So we have written to the court asking for it to be heard sooner, as the judge had recommended, and asked for it to be reserved to the first judge who had already read all of the papers. We just hope if that is not successful we get a judge who understands the nature of such "dealers". We are certainly adding interest to our claim.
  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 court, so the judgment was set aside. We are devastated by this as it was so obvious that all the excuses were made up. It is also only recently that they have made a response on the service history point. So we are going through all the aspects of the case to try to get judgment again.
  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 of around 80 mph. So the defendant says we have damaged the car by driving it beyond its capacity. We were only on the motorway for 28 miles. It is a Toyota Celica T Sport! So that's another part of our argument that if he says that, it is not fit for purpose as a sports car.
  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; not fit for purpose; and not as described, and the full service history is part of that point.
  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 basis that he has done the best he can from MOT records and says that we agreed with the fact that it is not 100 per cent accurate! He would have been able to check the Toyota ones from Toyota (as we have done), but has just made them up instead.
  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 service history book which only went as far as 2009. The "duplicate" was not correct in the details of the servicing garages, garage who sold the car as new, and all the later services were from the details of the garages who conducted the MOT tests. It is part of our case that the car was not as described as the car did not have a full service history and the duplicate is obviously a fake. The dealer has said to us that under Trading Standards rules: "If the vehicle's service book does not follow the vehicle and a duplicate is issued any services entered into the book must coincide with garages that have been in contact with the vehicle for MOT work or general maintenance/service". He also states that were were happy to accept the duplicate service book at the point of sale , knowing it was not 100 per cent accurate". In fact it is almost entirely false, but just contains some stamps from garages who have done MOT tests on the vehicle. He has no written proof that we accepted the duplicate service book at the point of sale, knowing it was not 100 per cent accurate. We most definitely did not say this. Is his quoting of the Trading Standards rule correct? Would he have to have had our consent in writing? We have it in writing on the original purchase details that we asked about the full service history and he would look for it. So I suppose that is evidence that we were concerned about the full service history, but when we collected the car we accepted a "duplicate service history" in the belief that it was a copy of the original, or verified as such.
  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...