Jump to content

mch1991

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

1 Follower

About mch1991

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello, My partner and daughter flew on Easyjet, the flight arrived into the destination 3 hours and 30 mins late, this was in December 2019, we have tried to negotiate with Easyjet who are no longer responding. An LBA was served over a month ago, asking them to pay up or allow us to go to ADR and issue a final response, no reply was received. Does my partner need to fill out the Certificate of Suitability and fill out a paper N1 claim if she wishes to include my daughter on the claimform as a second claimant, or can she issue via MCOL for the full amount with our daugh
  2. Money Claim Online outlines the fees for different amounts.
  3. Claiming for fuel seems reasonable if you have receipts, why should they benefit from receiving a car with more fuel in it? I think with the small claims court you'd be hard pressed to claim for missed appointments and rescheduling stuff, that's just from my experience with being through the court process, although it's worth bringing this up at a hearing if successful, claiming for insurance and other related vehicle expenses is worth claiming for, if a judge decides against it, they'll exclude those items from your claim, so there's no harm in trying. Yes, if you're rejecting the
  4. I'd probably claim for the vehicle and any expenses incurred to yourself (that you can provide evidence of), let the court decide whether any other costs are due for unreasonable behaviour and so on, it's called the "small claims court" for a reason, parties are expected to keep costs at a minimum. As far as I'm aware, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 allows a dealership one chance at repair after the initial 30 days from purchase are up, if this fails, then they're obligated to provide a refund for the vehicle (minus a small amount for any usage) should you wish to reject the vehicle, whic
  5. The 14 day rule would apply to a postal Notice of Intended Prosecution, if stopped by the police, then I believe they have 6 months to initiate proceedings in the Magistrates Court.
  6. After scouring the Consumer Rights Act 2015, there does appear to be an onus on the Consumer to prove there was a fault with the goods, this isn't difficult though, any electrical burning smell from a vehicle which leads to other electrical issues clearly indicates a fault exists and that the vehicle isn't fit for purpose or safe. In all my time of running a car sales business, I've never encountered the fault you've described, and I've sold many mk2/2.5 Focus models, to allege that you dislodged a plug is really grasping at straws. It's important to note, that within point 5 of their de
  7. There is a solution, I've stopped retailing vehicles with TFSI engines due to these issues, the repair needed is generally new piston rings, which requires removing and dismantling the engine, a labour intensive job, although on the occasions I've needed to have repairs on 1.4 TFSI and 1.8 TFSI engines on cars I've retailed, Audi and Volkswagen have covered the costs which would no doubt run into the thousands. I believe in America, there was actually a class action law suit against Audi in relation to these faults, not to mention they appeared on BBC Watchdog here.
  8. I'm not sure why they're trying to defend. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is abundantly clear with regards to faulty goods and the right to reject within 30 days, you don't need to give them a chance to repair to action your right to short term reject. The solicitors are writing nonsense (as to be expected), I believe the onus is actually on the seller to prove the fault was not present at the time of purchase, as opposed to what they're trying to say here. Goods must be of a satisfactory quality (I.e. free of any minor defects, safe, etc), be fit for purpose (I.e. being able to drive a mo
  9. Seems uncertain, I believe there was a judgement supporting the bailiffs position to clamp/seize a car under hire purchase, something to do with "beneficial interest", I've also read a judgment (don't have it to hand) that supports such vehicles cannot be seized, I'm not aware of any case law though. A lot of HP agreements include a clause that states you default/breach the agreement if the vehicle is seized by police, DVLA, or if they become controlled goods by an enforcement agent, so there could be ramifications under the HP agreement if a vehicle is seized and the finance company bec
  10. They're liable to collect the car, you do not need to return it, it is for them to collect it. You must stop using it immediately though.
  11. What article/part of GDPR are you quoting that supports your viewpoint that a private entity can pass on and process personal data to collect non existent speculative debts on the assumption it's "preventing/detecting" crime?
  12. If you've rejected the car, the whole point is that you're saying the car isn't fit for purpose, you're not requesting that they repair it, you're requesting that they refund you in full. It's pointless rejecting, and then doing as you're told by the dealership who decides to repair it anyways. A car with that low of a mileage having such issues is a massive red flag, walk away.
  13. s.20 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 outlines your "right to reject", within the first 30 days, you can reject goods for a full refund should a problem arise, in this case, the vehicle wasn't supplied "fit for purpose" or "as described". Dealers cannot refuse this request, if they refuse, then your next recourse is a complaint to Trading Standards, and a Letter Before Claim stating that you've rejected the goods and a refund is due, don't faff around engaging in letter tennis, get a Letter Before Claim sent, if the fail to pay within 14 days, then issue proceedings against them.
  14. I'd disagree, from working in store security in the past, whilst generally myself and others used to work under the approach, select, conceal, observe, non-payment and exit principles, it's actually quite common people being obvious, because it's "unusual", you wouldn't think of a typical shoplifter putting a jacket on and walking out, because it's "obvious", however that's the point, removing the element of concealment can make it difficult to prove intention to permanently deprive ownership. Whilst it's a while since I did this line of work, there was no "referrals" to any third p
×
×
  • Create New...