Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Zodiac


Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About tedd4

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

277 profile views
  1. Is this falling outside the Skills base Of this forum?
  2. Apologies For not being clearer in my attempt at being concise. The ABS Fault code wasn’t declared at the auction, indeed the pictorial evidence of the dashboard didn’t reveal this alert. On collection, we were told the car had to be recovered as they wouldn’t allow an inspection to assess roadworthyness as there was evidence of a collision again undisclosed. Once inspected the fault code identified a problem of the ABS Hydraulic pump and suggested that this and the ECU be replaced at my cost. It was only when the unit was sent for the replacement of the hydraulic pump that the new code shown isolated the ECU and this was identified by the specialist engineer as being the same fault code the recall was based on. AUDI haven’t said that it isn’t the same and inherently acknowledge it is by stating the recall campaign is closed now so they no longer will honour its repair. Gick quite rightly points out, my issue is that a manufacturer admits liability to a particular fault code and states it’s a safety issue stating a software design fault and covers the cost. However, it appears that the manufacturer is the entity that decides how long this recall is valid for. Trading Standards informed me that they have no enforceable jurisdiction on the timeframe siting this was a legal issue best left with the Motor Ombudsman. The latter has stated they don’t deal with recalls as this falls outside the contractual consideration they normally deal with. One opinion from a lawyer suggested this is negligence on the part of AUDI UK for not addressing the exact same issue albeit they fixed it once before. The fix was temporary and has recurred. Therefore, the same safety considerations exist as a result of a self-proclaimed design fault. I have checked AUDI Forums and I am not the only person to have had this problem. Everyone is forced to foot the bill. This is unfair and criminal that no agency exists to put them in check. And the wider question is, does this principle of a manufacturer determining the timeframe on a safety recall and allowed to absolve themselves of any responsibility once it’s closed? Is this not the remit of the Trading Standard?
  3. I bought a car from an auction in Jan 2019 and the car engine fault light indicated there was a problem with the ABS. It went to an Audi Dealership for a diagnostic scan to identifying exactly the problems with this car. One of them was a faulty ABS system which had the component, namely the ABS hydraulic pump identified as being faulty. Since then, this has been independently addressed by a non-Audi dealership but now a new fault code was recorded that hadn’t been formerly discussed. The code 01130 ‘Operation: Implausible signal’ declared itself and is related to the 45F2 ABS AUDI UK recall over a year ago. If put this to the dealership who did the diagnostic scan that previous campaigns that have now closed are looked at they will find that this is in fact an Audi recall fault and as such needs to be addressed courtesy of AUDI. In fact, the same recall fault was listed as an item of charge. When I asked why the ECU had to be changed as well and told it was ‘because the ‘ECU is one and the same unit as the hydraulic pump and the two are replaced because of the way it is constructed’. The matter has been raised with AUDI UK who tell me that having originally fixed the fault at the time of the initial recall on this car, the campaign open for 6 months was now closed and they wouldn’t be honouring the recall. As AUDI pointed out when this fault was first identified, this was a serious safety issue and as such I informed the Trading Standards. They were satisfied that the safety issue had been addressed but had no redress as the campaign was now closed. I was informed the 6 months was not set impartially but at the company’s discretion. They believed the Motor Ombudsman would resolve the issue. This advice and the state of deadlock lead me onto reporting it to the Motor Ombudsman but they flatly said they didn’t deal with recalls and ask Citizens Advice. I feel that a safety recall on a fault is an issue indefinitely if it exists as the fault lies in the design and construction which is implied as the manufacturer foots the bill. How is it that after 6 months they are absolved of accountability? Is this negligence on behalf of Audi? I am not sure why the Trading Standards don’t see this as an issue apart from it being a ‘legal matter’. What advice would you give me on going forward?
  4. Unfortunately I had a nervous breakdown and signed off work. Placed on heavy medication and had to deal with a repossession order and other debts therefore this wasn’t a priority at the time and there’s only so much you can expect others to do on your behalf. I am not quite sure how to proceed other than point out the points we’ve discussed with the creditor and if they refuse to cooperate instruct a solicitor though I gave to keep that cost to the minimum. I appreciate your assistance.
  5. I became unwell to the point of not being able to work for two years. I could only cope with this issue now.
  6. I would understand if I didn’t offer to negotiate repayment but they refused to enter any form of arbitration and refused to acknowledge the fact they had served it upon the wrong entity. I didn’t have the money for legal representation to know how to contest the CCJ and that a prompt action was required. As a Limited Company at the time, the debt should be associated with it and not me. How is it that can’t be corrected? Isn’t the purpose of it to protect one from this sort of action?
  7. I did state that they were enforcing this debt on the wrong entity but the order for questioning still proceeded. The enforcement in the form of the notice of intention to remove my personal belongings didn’t materialise and their actions stopped there. Unfortunately, the system doesn’t operate on a cash payment basis as the bill comes from the doctor who is then reimbursed by the insurer or the patient. I’m trying to buy a property from where I can operate and the CCJ is preventing me from getting a mortgage. There lies my more serious problem. (As these orders / notices are against the wrong entity, can they be struck out?)
  8. So despite offering to settle the debt they can refuse to accept thus keeping the CCJ active which is in place to penalise you for failing to pay your debt. It seems as though they are being vindictive
  9. In 2015, I was practising Medicine privately and opened an account with a Laboratory for the provision of investigations conducted on patients. Initially, the account opened was in my name but latterly, I had created a limited company and notified the accounts department of this change. Two years in, my account fell into arrears as a result of peculiar circumstances with a private medical insurance company that held back my payments. The amount claimed that was outstanding was approximately £5600 though I had disputed this to be £3700. Nevertheless, I tried to negotiate with the company to give me time but they held the belief that I had been paid by the insurance company though never presented evidence to support this and pursued legal action. The county court business centre issued a CCJ to the sum of £6376.27, inclusive of late payment charges and interest. Given their intransigence, I pointed out that the court order was made against me personally when it should have been against the Limited company. The company continued further legal action and issued an order to attend for questioning. On the day there was no hearing listed though I managed to get the court to perform the interview given the ever climbing debt the company claimed I owed. A formal notice with the intention to take control of goods valued at £9835. However, despite showing willingness to settle this debt at its original level by my attendance for questioning and fully cooperating I never heard from the court or the company. The CCJ remains on my credit file and the company has a very dominant presence in the public and private sector making it exceptionally rich with the senior directors taking home salaries in excess of £1million per year. Thus, their services are integral to any practice set up. In an attempt to settle the matter, I proactively contacted the court to inform me of the outcome following questioning and I was directed to the creditor as no further court action had been requested. In following their advice, I had asked that the case be looked at and stated that I was in a position to address the debt pending an agreed arrangement. The company replied that under the circumstances around the case, they felt it wasn’t feasible to revisit it and therefore wouldn’t allow me to open another account with them. The implications being that my attempt to get a mortgage is hampered, my private practice made almost impossible and my credit score still being effected for a further 2 years. Are they within their right to refuse to revisit this debt when an offer to settle is made? Please note that not at any time was arbitration offered or appear to be an avenue they were willing to persue.
  10. I have an ongoing case whereby the London Borough of Hackney has rejected my appeal for contesting the fact that denied me from the single persons discount and as it was deemed therefore that I wasn't entitled to the benefits reduction associated with being on ESA at the time. The matter has been referred to my MP who effectively made Hackney look at my case as I had already appealed but they have now suggested that I go the Valuation Tribunal to make a further judgment. Details: I was a single person at the time at my primary residence, produced evidence that it met the legal criteria of what a primary residence is as well as utility bills that proved I was living there i.e. broadband bill, electricity bill and service charge from the management team of the apartment block. Despite this, the council also asked for home insurance bill though I hadn't taken any out pay slips when I had already informed them that I was not employed and a receipt of a furniture removal firm that delivered furniture when there was furniture in the property the incumbent resident was suppose to purchase. I have been denied the single persons discount, I have been denied the reduction that is my entitlement whilst being on ESA at the time and been made to pay a full charge for council tax. This is all based on one email I wrote to LBH when the sale of the flat looked definite. The decision to remove the single persons discount was made before this notification. The prospective buyer then pulled out and so I stayed until 19.11.19. I have stated my case over and over and London Borough of Hackney who chose to ignore the evidence I have produced, ignore the law in terms of what defines 'primary residence' and not provided me with any other argument or evidence to the contrary to support their decision. In other words, they did not at the time come and do a site inspection and have no evidence to the contrary that I wasn't living there. They reference the address I gave them which was my parents address as this was the best correspondence address to give at the time. LBH continued to charge me and deduct from my account the full amount beyond the sale of the property in November 2018 through to March 2019 and as it was via direct debit my bank refunded me those additional months. This was despite the completion of sale confirmation by my solicitor and the new owner/occupier informing the council of their ownership and payment of council tax. Other than going to the valuation tribunal, is there anything else that I can do to challenge LBH and get the refund for the 5 months in the form a single persons discount and the reduction afforded when on Employment Support Allowance. Thank you for your advice in advance.
  11. I will send a copy of the lodgers agreement, a table that lists all the monies owed and paid for, copies of the bills that were outstanding the other lodgers paid for. I’m also relying on the fact that pre-court proceedings were not followed, that I had a different address which I will prove from a letter I received from the Department of Work and Pensions and that the name the claim is against only approximates to mine. The claim was therefore incorrectly addressed to an unknown name. The claimant also has failed to provide a breakdown of how these figures have been reached. It’s ludicrous to state that I owe him over £2300 when the monthly rent was £700 and he stayed for 6 months and had a £1000 deposit. Even if you disregard the outstanding bills / damages due he is claiming he overpaid by 50% I.e. effectively his rent, after refunding him his deposit, was £150 per month. This doesn’t fit with current London rental rates. I hope this will demonstrate the absurdity of this claim.
  12. He most definitely will not do that as it's his revenge for being given notice to leave.
  13. Thank you. So other than applying to set outside and relaying the information above is there anything I need to include in my statement that would ensure the judge agrees to set this CCJ aside?
  14. I have since contacted the former tenant and he is no longer in the country and isn't going to cancel the CCJ nor is he going to try to challenge my attempt at setting this judgement aside or enforce the judgement. It has however effected my credit score and I need to address this before I can apply for a mortgage. Can you please advise? Thanking you in advance.
  15. I am not sure but there was a dispute between myself and the tenant about bills and I withheld monies from his deposit. I didn’t receive any communication like a LBCA.
  • Create New...