Jump to content

mch1991

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    148
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    0.1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About mch1991

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. 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 car on the basis it's faulty and the dealer has attempted a repair or failed to undertake a repair, you should give notice in writing to the dealership that you are rejecting the vehicle with a request that they pay a refund for the vehicle, when they fail or refuse to pay, generally it's at this point when you issue a letter before claim affording them 14 days to pay, when they fail, you then issue a claim against them, that's the process I'd use. A letter before claim must include all the facts of the case, why the money is due, how you've arrived at the amount you're requesting, and explaining that failure to pay will lead to a claim being issued.
  2. 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, which you should give notice in writing to the dealership seeking a refund as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 defence, they admit that a fault was present, I quote "it was refitted and thereby all ISSUES with the vehicle were duly corrected". Their defence is more of a denial, as opposed to targetting specific facts, they know they're grasping at straws with this defence, I'd say their chances of success are very slim. Unfortunately this type of behaviour is rife within the motor trade, when you make £1k profit before taxes on a £4k car, your margins are very slim, so when you have to take a car back, repair it, and resell it, you generally make a loss, not to mention a lot of businesses do not understand how the short term right to reject works, or that consumers have 6 months protection in regards to faults occurring.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 motor vehicle without any issues from A to B) and match the advertising description (a used car in good condition would generally be expected to be without any defects or faults with any mechanical or electrical components, you'd merely expect wear and tear on the bodywork). When a defect occurs within 30 days from the delivery of goods, and the goods are rejected, the seller has 14 days to action a refund without any undue delay, you correctly sought a refund and rejected the vehicle on the basis a defect occurred, as per your rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This won't end well for them. I'd also recommend contacting Trading Standards and making a complaint.
  7. 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 become aware.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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 party companies such as RLP where I worked. I wouldn't bother writing or contacting the store management, nothing will come of it, stores will always side with their staff, especially where assets are concerned, you're essentially guilty until proven innocent in these environments, not to mention management/head office will have probably received similar letters.
  13. It's not uncommon for the likes of RLP to contact those who have had their details taken after an alleged incident of shoplifting. The whole RLP model was essentially dismantled and destroyed in 2012 in the case between A Retailer v Ms B & Ms K 2012 at the Oxford County Court, the whole model requiring those accused of shoplifting to pay "compensation" is flawed, and the judge found that there can be no provision for shoplifters to pay any contribution costs towards security, as this is merely an expense of running a business and that the security were actively involved in their duties, and not diverted from it, the same costs would've been incurred regardless of whether the incident occured or not, so long as the items were returned in a resalable condition. You can ignore RLP by all means, nothing will happen, they have no capacity to issue proceedings against you anyways, and are essentially acting as a powerless third party.
  14. Also to add, it's not "entrapment" either, entrapment is when the police would coerce you into committing an offence you would unlikely or be unwilling to commit, the police didn't coerce you into speeding, it's not a trap either, generally road speed limits are posted, it's upto drivers as to whether they decide to drive above that limit, and there's an inherent risk that you'll be caught eventually. Whilst I sympathise somewhat with what you're saying with regards to being pulled over would've changed your behaviour, unfortunately roads traffic policing has been cut horrendously, meaning static cameras become more common, especially in areas with higher KSI statistics. Your punishment will be worse than the 5 points and several hundreds of pounds in fines I read about this week from a person who was found guilty of causing serious injury through careless driving (killing two horses in the process), the justice system in this country has it very wrong in my opinion.
×
×
  • Create New...