Jump to content

Addyv

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Addyv

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Don't know much about cars but I believe it's the plastic cover on the engine.
  2. Yes, there was a big crack on the engine cover.
  3. I now wait for a new re-listed trial date for hearing. Will keep you guys informed in due course.
  4. Conniff, very sorry for the late reply but no update yet. I am still waiting for the hearing which is due shortly. I will update you then. Best
  5. Not at the moment. I have read documents now as why the car was remapped and it had to do with problems regarding engine/ fuel consumption. We will attend court soon and I will advise you of the outcome. I do not know all particulars. Kindest regards
  6. The care was used aprox 2 months and then shortly later no longer used. Did approx. 1500 miles. Tyres were pass the legal limit when serviced but sold as new. Wrong bolts on wheels. Air conditioning faulty. Lighter faulty among the problems described above. Cracked engine etc.
  7. Dear King12345, I believe you have it wrong. The car was faulty prior to having it remapped. It is not my car. Because of the problems a ecu remap was actioned with the manufactures settings intact. The reason for the engineers. We have been fully advised by the software provider etc. Ecu remap is completely reversible. It is a Sale of Goods Act claim. I believe some posters have it wrong due to the way I have written things. It is no different to routing your phone which is software and not hardware related. From what informative things I have read Conniff has it right.
  8. heliosuk, thank you for your response. If only you saw the bundle you would not say the same. Indeed, it is the defendants who have made at least 8 excuses to date given each one the one proceeding 'failed'. Our claim has remained the same. We have not had the opportunity to discuss the case properly. I will let the solicitor deal with it. I wanted some information for my understanding and knowledge. I am sorry I am not clear. I did not wish to give to much information, indeed both me and my sibling who I am writing this for feel we have given too much information. With regards to my clarity,
  9. No the case is very clear. Quite the contrary, we have a solicitor representing us but the barrister out witted and the solicitor barely had a chance to talk. Our case is very strong. As I said the case was postponed so an amended report could be filed. What I am after is the law aspects re contract element of my post.
  10. As stated before car is under her name. She commenced legal proceedings. All the complaints to the merchant etc. from the start from her. Her debit card was used to pay some of the amount towards the car. Rest in cash. So I am sure I have it all covered since I have researching but just want reassurance re the law...kindest regards.
  11. Dear Conniff, Yes it is, paid for. Fully qualified engineer. Both parties had to agree to an engineer. As discussed above the hearing was postponed for they disputed this and the defendants have claimed they have been prejudiced by not being allowed to provide some of their documents, namely their 'expert' engineers report (which is full of opinions and he has never had access to the car and not independent) and this engineer was not authorised by the court to do this. However, the documents will have to be supplied as requested by the judge and it is up to the independent engineer to make wha
  12. That is documents to the independent engineer. I have been busy looking at these matters too including the law.
  13. Dear Conniff, The manufacturer is aware the car is remapped and has stated in writing the warranty is not invalidated. The ecu software company provider has confirmed the correct software was applied. The independent engineers report as per court requests states the same that the ecu remap is not the reason for faults. It was for the is reason the report was requested. However, the defendants barrister has now tried to claim we have tampered with the car so have no come back. The hearing has been postponed again for the defendants have claimed they have been prejudiced by not being all
  14. The expert engineer disagrees having looked at the documents. The manufacturer has advised car is still under warranty (with remap and in writing). We have this in writing. ECU remap is reversible. Car is not driven. Car had hardware problems not software. All manufactures settings intact. Problems prior to remap.
×
×
  • Create New...