Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mch1991

  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 daughter mentioned within the particulars of claim? Many thanks.
  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 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.
  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, which you should give notice in writing to the dealership seeking a refund as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
  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 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.
  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 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.
  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 become aware.
  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 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Unhelpful, however an opinion expressed on a public forum, especially considering you stated you "felt victimised" for being punished for breaking the law. Exceptional hardship arguments only generally work where your absence from driving will cause others to suffer (I.e. If you had a family member that relied upon you to drive them to regular hospital appointments for a serious illness, or you are a carer for a relative), there are successful arguments I've seen against a totting up ban where a ban would see job loss plus the inability to make mortgage repayments (essentially leading to homelessness), although the whole point of a punishment is to cause you hardship, otherwise it wouldn't be a "punishment". The Notice of Intended Prosecutions should, I believe, be served separately for each of the incidents you describe, and should be served within 14 days to the Registered Keeper, failing to do so means the police fall at the first hurdle and the matter generally cannot technically proceed to court.
  18. You feel "victimised" for breaking the law on 6 plus occasions? Have I missed something?
  19. Ignore. You'll receive a letter or two off QDR Solicitors, that can also be ignored, it's for the train operating company to lay a complaint in the magistrates court, ZZPS are trying to pervert the course of justice by taking money to stop potential proceedings of an alleged criminal offence. Once it's 6 months after the date of the alleged incident, then it'll be timed barred and proceedings cannot be started in the magistrates court.
  20. There's been no changes on any of the credit reference agencies, Vodafone are still recording her payments in her name. It's really annoying, she has around 3 months left and just wants to pay up and leave, yet she can't because they won't let her into her account, she's never consented to any name changes on the account at any juncture. Vodafones stance is that "they cannot do anything unless they speak to the account holder", as far as she's concerned, she's always been the account holder. She invoked her right to cancel by giving them in writing 30 days notice to leave (as per the terms and conditions), they're yet to respond. Nothing is ever easy with this company.
  21. My mother has a phone contract with Vodafone, she's nearly at the end of the agreement and she would like to cancel it as she has no interest entering into another. She called them to cancel and to pay off any remaining amounts, however they cannot access her account because the main account holders name has been changed, nobody knows anything about this, the name in question is an Arabic name that nobody can pronounce for a start. Vodafone have essentially been useless and unhelpful, we're concerned that her personal data has been compromised, surely this is a breach of the General Data Protection Regulations? Not only has someone accessed her account, they've changed the name on it. Vodafone are still collecting her direct debits and recording her payment history with the credit reference agencies, yet she cannot cancel as per the terms of her agreement.
  22. To initiate proceedings in the magistrates court for the byelaw offence, I believe they'd require the name of the person who was driving (keeper liability doesn't exist under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for byelaw covered land), they'd need to lay a complaint within 6 months of the incident also. The Train Operator generally won't do this because any money the driver is ordered to pay would be paid to the Crown upon a successful conviction, not to mention in the criminal courts there's a strict burden of proof, as opposed to balance of probability within the County Court. I wonder how a private company can try to accept payment and make money from an alleged criminal offence, in exchange for dropping proceedings? It almost sounds like they're conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
  23. Interesting. If you assert that you were using the vehicle for non business matters, then it would be for the police to prove beyond any reasonable doubt this fact in court, do you have receipts? Surely a non business transaction would be a few items rather than a large stock purchase?
  24. Contracts can still be entered into with "minors", although if I remember correctly terms which disadvantage the minor are most likely to be held as being unenforceable and more likely to go in the favor of the minor. Not sure why you'd bid to buy a vehicle with no intention of buying, as someone who goes to auction a lot, it's generally a well oiled operation in regards to selling cars, so I can understand why auction companies would seek these charges from you, although essentially as the vehicle isn't being sold, then I'd imagine they'll have a tough time getting that 20% commission, especially when they'll make the 20% commission upon successfully selling the vehicle, so they'd be profiting twice from one transaction. As for your parents being held liable, that is a legal nonsense, if they have no knowledge of any such agreement or have entered into and accepted any such terms, then no such clause would be enforceable in court. I do feel that you would be liable for the costs in selling the vehicle, which in terms of cost, would probably be something like £100 or less.
  • Create New...