Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

BCOMDAVE

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BCOMDAVE

  1. Success! ...but a loose end An Update: Heard nothing, so I made a formal complaint to Lloyds. They called me back in 24hrs and took all the details etc etc again and said that they would pass the info to the Cards Dispute Team. They then cheekily sent me a letter saying 'thanks for your feedback your complaint is now resolved and you don't need to do anything more.' Sadly, nothing had changed in terms of my S75 claim - still no contact from the Disputes Team. So, after another 14 days, I contacted the FOS and discussed it with them and got the usual spiel about giving the bank 8 weeks in which to respond. I agreed and explained the letter stating all was resolved - then I sent copies of everything to FOS and they opened a claim. They said later the same day that they had contacted Lloyds requesting information about my case. 24hrs later I got a phone call from the Lloyds Disputes Team (maybe a coincidence) agreeing to pay the claim in full. No challenges to any of the damages (Insurance, VED, Car Hire, storage charges) I added to the purchase price, save asking for a couple of receipts. Money paid into my account withing 24hrs. I'll also update the actual thread regarding the car. There's just one loose end for me though: The guidance notes for the CRA section 20 says: "...when the right to reject is exercised by the consumer, the trader has a duty to refund the consumer and from this time the consumer must make the goods available for collection by the trader..." The trader didn't want to acknowledge any of his responsibilities. He didn't want to give, nor has he given the refund and while I quoted the above to him early on he hasn't tried to claim the goods (yet?). I have made a "claim" under Section 75 of the CCA against the bank who are jointly liable for the breach of contract by the trader. - which they have paid. The bank is not the trader and not a car dealer. The contract for sale was breached and is "at an end", although I'm not quite sure I fully understand that phase and what happens to the title to the goods. Morally, and I guess legally that reverts to the trader. The Bank have not "bought" the car from me. They have asked me to sell it and pass any funds to them. They obviously would like to mitigate their loses, but what authority do they have in this respect - How does the title transfer to them? Where is this in the CCA? Is it their property? I have read elsewhere that consumers have been left with all manor of goods following S75 and have become "Involuntary Bailees". Also there is the (faint) possibility that the trader will challenge the clawback when the Bank's solicitors exercise the indemnity clause of 75(2). I understand he has 45 days in which to do this. Although I have nothing from the bank to know when this date may be. He may, (possibly more likely) accept the hit from the bank and ask for the vehicle back. But then what if it's been sold? He would presumably have a claim, but against who, me or the bank? The bank have asked for "any funds", I shouldn't care really, but when I disclose all of the faults, as I am duty bound, and the values is next to nothing and I get a pittance for it, could I be challenged? Any legal brains with opinion or people with past experience in post S75 procedures etc? Thanks for all the support Dave
  2. Thanks, I will look into the info your reference material. Initial thought though? That could be more complicated. If the 'performance of the obligation' is providing accommodation in Latvia, does that then follow that action has to be taken in Latvia? Maybe I should read more first. Thanks again.
  3. Status update for any interested parties Small claim action on hold pending outcome of Section 75 claim. Still battling away with Halifax/Lloyds Bank credit card disputes team. Opened a Section 75 claim by phone with them on the 25/06. and even now after 2 months, a few phone calls, emails and a formal complaint, I still don't have any written response (even acknowledging safe receipt of my claim) from the very section that is supposed to deal with it. The complaints manager has suggested that Section 75 claims are "very complicated", but I think the only complication comes from trying to find ways to avoid their liability. Unfortunately the Financial Ombudsman says that the Bank can have up to eight weeks in which to resolve the complaint. I'll update again when I have more to report.
  4. Thanks EssCee This relates to a claim against a motor trader as described here. No case is cast iron, but I think the balance of probability is in my favour. I have an independent engineers' report in CPR35 format confirming my claim that the vehicle was likely to be faulty at the time of sale and that they consider it to be the responsibility of the trader. I raised a Section 75 on this with the bank (Halifax/Lloyds)over two months ago now and they have not formally communicated with we yet. They have either ignored me, stalled with they are busy and S75 is a complicated thing to sort out, or blamed technical issues with IT. I have escalated this into a formal complaint with the bank now and just wish they would at least reject my claim (difficult I think with the weight of evidence put forward) so I can move on to the next step. I understand about double dipping so don't expect twice the payout (although all the aggravation and delay makes me think 8% interest is not worth it. assuming a judge would award such in the current economic climate - think it's generally 4% before judgement and statutory thereafter). Sadly, there doesn't seem to be legally binding timescales requiring the bank to respond to a S75. You said, "It does however hinge upon you proving your case to the satisfaction of a Judge where the claim is contested." If the bank don't answer, then they haven't contested, but can I still take action against the bank? and would this be any better than taking action against the trader? Obviously the bank is not (we hope) made of straw. Thanks for your thoughts though. Dave
  5. Hi folks and thanks for taking an interest. I have a consumer issue which I would like some opinions on please? Please forgive me if this is in the wrong place. On 18/07 I selected and booked accommodation for two nights via the Booking.com website for a place called Juras Mols in Bigauņciems Latvia. I was hoping for a few days away from consumer related hassle, ha ha, must have broken a mirror recently. The website clearly says on the accommodation page: 2nd Paragraph: “Guests can enjoy a sauna and a heated indoor pool. ….” 4th Paragraph: “Free Wi-Fi and free private parking are available. …” My children very much enjoy swimming pools when they’re not on the internet and my wife also enjoys saunas and so I booked on the basis of the information supplied. The general facilities tab for the accommodation shows: Pool and wellness • Swimming Pool • Indoor pool (all year) • Fitness centre (Additional Charge) • Sauna Internet • WiFi is available in all areas and is free of charge. All rooms include: “Private bathroom, Hairdryer, Ironing facilities ….” From the rooms available at the time I booked a “Standard Quadruple room with Balcony” containing 2 single beds and 2 bunk beds at a total price of €138 which I paid via a Visa Debit card though the web site. The description of the accommodation and facilities along with the claim on the web site of the 2nd best hotel in Bigauņciems gave me good expectations that the accommodation would suit our needs for an enjoyable break. (laughable really as when I got there, I found there are only 2 hotels in that location ). On arrival we were met by a member of staff, who showed us the common dining room and kitchen and took us to room Num 3 where we were shown the door to our ‘balcony’. This was in fact a metal fire escape leading to the ground. It had close growing conifer trees and overlooked the ‘hotel’ junk yard which I obviously photographed for the record. We asked about the “pool” as we could not see anything that might be a pool and were told that there was no pool and no sauna available. My wife later discovered on the second evening while having a conversation with a member of staff in Russian that there was a sauna in a room marked “Private”, but that (paraphrased), ‘we don’t use it because we have so many guests’. Later we were allowed to store our luggage for a couple of hours between check out and departure in the same Private room. We saw that it was being used as a store room with mattresses and bed linen and was obviously not available to guests. The staff clearly didn’t want us to photograph this room. The only sign of any ‘pool’ was an empty circular ‘plunge pool’ of not more than 1m diameter. Wifi: The facilities says, “WiFi is available in all areas and is free of charge.” The normal expectation of a reasonable person would be that this would provide access to the internet. (Isn’t there something about internet access being a basic human right?). In truth is was sometimes possible to get a Wifi connection, but it did not give Internet access in most parts of the building that I tried. It was useless to us, unless we were in the common dining area on the ground floor. Not a complete disaster, but certainly not what was advertised. We returned from the beach on the first evening around 9 p.m. we found the shower was broken, and judging by the condition of the broken fitting, was of a long standing nature. Not the biggest problem in the world to hold the shower head up, although more difficult for the children to shower on their own, but certainly not a quality experience. Soon thereafter my children complained to me that the hot water in the shower had gone cold. I checked and there was no hot water from the shower or sink. I went to the reception and was told that it was because too many people had used the shower and that the accommodation’s boiler wasn’t able to make enough, but that it would be ok in about an hour. We ate and I checked the water on several occasions up until midnight and it was always cold. I checked again in the morning when it was at best tepid. So I ‘enjoyed’ two invigorating cold showers. I checked again in the late evening following our return from a day trip and again the water was cold. I spoke with another guest who said that they had never had hot water on any evening of their stay. – I took their name and address. This property and the facilities available to guests had clearly been misrepresented. Due to the lack of the advertised facilities: Wifi, proper balcony, indoor pool and sauna etc., I photographed and noted all of the problems and kept a copy of the website pages. I contacted the booking .com customer services on my return and informed them that I considered them to be in breach of contract due to their misrepresentation of the hotel and requested a full refund and claimed damages by way of the cost of a trip to the nearest indoor swimming pool with a sauna. I said that: I believed it was an express term, of the contract for services, that the facilities described would be provided as part of my booking at this hotel. It was also an implied term that the service provided would be done so with reasonable care and skill. Under UK law there are a number of pieces of legislation that provide consumer protection from unscrupulous or negligent traders, namely the: Misrepresentation Act 1967, Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (amended 2014), Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and most recently the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I note now from their website that they disclaim liability for pretty much everything and state that “any dispute arising out of these general terms and conditions and our services shall exclusively be submitted to the competent courts in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.” I said I would be most surprised if there was not similar provision for consumer protection from misrepresentation by a business under the Dutch Civil Code. I also believe that Article 6 of EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DIRECTIVE 2005/29/EC – the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive covers misleading business practices (“A commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful or in any way, including overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, ….”), is generally applicable in this instance. And in any event the Consumer Right Directive 2013 should still apply. First off they claim to have not received my email. Then they offered 25 Eur compensation without acknowledging or answering any point of my claim. Next they said that it was difficult after the event and again offered 25 Eur. They now claim that: it’s nothing to do with them as they are just an ‘advertiser’, that the hotel does not accept my complaint and again they offered 25 Eur. I have raised the matter on the ODR platform for what it is worth. I have asked Visa about a charge back and they have said, “It’s a very weak claim, but if you want to submit it we’ll take a look.” Misrepresentation of the fraudulent kind is fairly clear in my eyes. I’ve taken a look at the Resolver web site, but that talks about legislation relating to package holidays, which I don’t believe is appropriate for room only bookings. So, please: 1 Am I barking up the wrong tree or being unrealistic in expecting things to be as described? 2 Anybody know about the ‘harmonisation’ of consumer laws across Europe or the Dutch Civil Code? 3 Which is the most appropriate legislation? 4 Anybody had experience of the “European Small Claims Procedure” (I hope I've included the relevant link) Thanks in advance for any info. Dave
  6. Sorry to answer my own thread as it were, but this may be useful to others who, after complaining about something, find that they have 'lost' out via phone charges. This is a prohibited business practice. Always check the number your calling and bypass the Service and Premium rate numbers where possible. The legislation is: The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI:2013/3134) Section 41 Help-line charges over basic rate 41. (1) Where a trader operates a telephone line for the purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts entered into with the trader, a consumer contacting the trader must not be bound to pay more than the basic rate. (2) If in those circumstances a consumer who contacts a trader in relation to a contract is bound to pay more than the basic rate, the contract is to be treated as providing for the trader to pay to the consumer any amount by which the charge paid by the consumer for the call is more than the basic rate. Complaints about this 'practice' can also be directed via Citizens Advice. There are a few business sectors, e.g. gambling, purchases from vending machines, which are exempt (No idea why??), but I think it's worth proper complaints if anyone finds themselves having to 'pay' to report bad service. There are a few organisations who offer Customer Services via 0800 numbers and wouldn't it great if all had to! Hope this helps Dave
  7. Thanks, I know there are sometimes alternatives, but I'm interested in knowing/confirming that there is legislation so your second link is much more valuable. Companies sometimes 'hide' their Customer Services behind something else such that they make a revenue out of you calling to request your consumer rights. So they win even if/when they loose. Company give bad service, then profits from your complaint.... Doesn't seem quite fair. Probably why those who proposed that part of CRD or Consumer Contracts Regulations thought it was a good idea to make companies offer Customer Services at no more than local rate. I feel a letter to one or two CEOs is required to politely ask them to conform. (and ask for my 7p/min extra back ) Thanks again!
  8. Greetings all! I could trawl around the net for the answer to this for a few hrs. However, as you guys are usually clued up on this stuff. I though somebody may like to offer some wisdom for the rest of us. It was my understanding that the the Consumer Rights Directive made using Premium rate numbers a no no for calling "Customer Services" and that these call's should be at no more than "local rate". I can't find the legislation though. Was this just a proposal, or a proper 'unfair business practice' and has anybody got the reference/Act etc. The reason I ask, is that I notice that a number of car hire companies only offer "customer Services" via their reservations numbers which are often premium or service rated e.b. 0870 or 0844. Thanks for your help Dave
  9. Seeking some clarification from a legally knowledgeable or experienced person. In the case of breach of contract under the CRA one is entitled to bring an action via the small claims track. If the purchase qualifies; you are also entitled to claim against the Issuing Bank of the Credit Card under Section 75. So, assuming that one has launched down both routes, is it then 'first past the post' as it were? Say, for example, the Bank complies and pays out. I assume they would then claim or have title to the faulty goods. (Is that the case?). What would then be the situation with an in progress action against the trader? Or, what happens to the other action, if for example, the trader suddenly has an epiphany regarding his unreasonableness and coughs up under the CRA? Thanks to any and all who can add to my (and others') understanding on this point.
  10. From experience I would suggest you keep a written log of every event in relation to this situation. Including absolutely all costs associated (You may need it later). Try only to communicate with the trader in writing. So there is a crystal clear trail of the dialogue. Try and keep a copy of the original car advert/details. If you paid for any part of the purchase with a credit card (£100 or more in most cases). Contact your issuing bank, as you may be entitled to a claim under Section 75. Check the CRA 2015, Section 20 (7 & 8 ) In particular. ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/20 ) and also look through the "Explanatory Notes" Tab on the same page. This explains your rights and what the law says should happen. However, try to be realistic, the trader probably knows this, and if he's taken this stance already, you need to consider whether you are prepared to fight it through the courts or walk away with a loss. If you can give us more detail of car, age, any terms given to you e.g. warranty, fault found, cost/likely repair cost, payment etc you can get more specific advice. It may be economically repairable?
  11. Hi HB My main problem is listed here: https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?488610-Problem-Vehicle-(Brakes-Instrument-etc)-from-Botley-Car-Centre-Ltd-Southampton&p=5135547#post5135547 Because of not having a vehicle and a lot of impending costs. I hoped to take advantage of Europcar's offer. Unfortunately all I got was stress, a waste of my time and a phone bill. I resorted to a Taxi in the end due to the short notice. So, I want to know if this Internet booking with a confirmation email constitutes a contract and if I can reasonably claim compensation for their incompetence which has caused me consequential loss? I have also just seen something on the Hampshire trading standards website that says vehicle rental is not a contract that can be cancelled under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. See: https://www.hants.gov.uk/business/tradingstandards/consumeradvice/goodsandservices/distanceordering (Halfway down under: Contracts you can't cancel.) So, can anyone inform us if vehicle rental is outside of this legislation (and if so, what is it covered by)? One might say, but the value of the contract was just £1, however, there is also a point of principle, in that another's incompetence and failure to deliver has resulted in inconvenience and loss. For which I believe a remedy should be available. Or am I completely wrong? Thanks in advance
  12. Yes. This was a prepaid booking. It's probably computer generated, but cheekily they sent me an email to say, thank you for YOUR cancellation... I think the whole thing is shoddy from start to finish. It is my belief, but I'm not sure, hence my wanting to check here. That a contract did exist and was cancelled/terminated/breached by them? Thanks
  13. Update: Engineer's Report Arrived: Important parts are: O2 "We would recommend the vehicle is not returned to active service use in its present state as this poses a potential danger to any operator and other road users." C1 "We would conclude that the numerous conditions evident with the vehicle would, on the balance of probability, have been present at the point of purchase." C2 "The conditions are considered the responsibility of the selling agents." I intend to submit this report with the S75 Claim to the Bank and ? Particulars of Claim to accompany N1 - Could someone please confirm this needs to go here, or does it get submitted later as evidence? Thanks in advance
  14. Hi, Having aggravation with a second hand car purchase (in another thread). Feeling a bit of financial pressure. Need to get to Stansted Airport so I thought I'd give a One-way for a £1 rental a go. No luck here either it seems. Booked and paid for a £1 one-way rental from Europcar. Online booking was a bit slow but seemed to go ok. Got a confirmation back and all looked fine. 48hrs before I'm due to pick up I get 2 emails saying don't forget to prepare for your rental and please remember your driving licence etc. 3p.m. today, (19hrs before) scheduled pick-up I get a call from an unknown number to my mobile. It's from the pick-up location for the car and the woman says, 'we don't have a car for you tomorrow, so we're cancelling your booking". I explain that with less than 24hrs notice I'm not impressed and can she please give me a written explanation as to why this is? She refuses and says, "I've told you twice we don't have a car for you". So, I call Customer Services which wastes more time. They say 'It's nothing to do with them and you need to speak with "reservations". Another call and more waste, and yep you guessed it, they say, 'nothing to do with us, you need to speak to the branch.' They do say that the branch should be sorting it out and organising another vehicle, but I'm not sure the call agent has got a full understanding of the problem. So out of interest, I go back to the online reservation and find that there's a vehicle available under the same scheme, with the same destination drop off, for the same dates, but from another not too distant branch. Call Customer Services - No use at all. Can't do anything about it. Verbal acknowledgement that it's not good Customer Service, but they can't do anything. So, I book the vehicle from the alternate location via the web site even though it will be more time consuming for me. Then I go back to the reservation system and there it now shows a vehicle available from the original location for return to Stansted. Just like the one that was cancelled a couple of hours earlier. (I have copied all of this information) Oh. In case anyone else is trying to use this system. It comes up with a "How can we Help You - Web Chat/we'll phone you back" dialog. - This goes to Barcelona and a very nice call agent who is absolutely no use as they can't do anything with these bookings. Question then please: The rental agreement - I believe it's only binding after you have signed at pick-up? , but does a contract exits before this and are they in breach of contract? Certainly their T&C says a whole lot about what the bailee can and can't and how if you don't show for your rental they can charge you £85. Which rather suggests they would like to impose a 'fine' for a customer breaching a contract or have I got that all wrong? Have help greatly appreciated.
  15. Hi, I'm not trying to knock you. You're obviously having a rough time with this, but it's not the best example of a business letter. Try adopting this sort of structure/format (can be used for almost anything): Situation - Whatever it is - I bought from you, car (make model) registration index (this is important) forget the minutiae of things like tow bar unless they relate to the problem. Complication - What happened, what they did etc can't fix it, which makes it of unsatisfactory quality Action - What you will do (Reject under CRA Short-term Right (if still applicable). What you want them to do, refund/replace, whatever and when you want it (reasonably) done by Politeness - be nice and ask for them to please respond (in writing - you want things formally recorded) within n days. If you want a model/template to start with that you can make your own then the Which Consumer people have a draft here: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/letter/letter-rejecting-a-second-hand-car-bought-from-a-dealer Its for a second hand deal, but you can adapt it (try to keep to the structure above) I'm sure. Alternatively, given the value of deal, and potentially claim, you may be better off engaging a legal. I'm sorry, but it's late and I didn't reread everything, but have you spoken with the motor ombudsman? Is the garage a member?
  16. I have also discovered that Botley Car Centre Ltd. trades as http://www.bestcaroffer.co.uk/. Buried in the term and conditions of this site I found an apparently compliant Ref to the European Online Dispute Resolution Service/ADR. Apparently as of 2013 online traders are required to offer consumers a link to this site. The Botley Car Centre trading as Best Car Offer T&C goes on to say: "Please also note that we are not obliged to use ADR should you have a complaint with us. If you do have a complaint with us which we cannot resolve using our internal complaints handling procedures we will contact you by letter or email about whether we are prepared to submit to ADR." Has anyone here had an experience of this EU ODR? Is it a [problem], or just something that a trader has to pay lip service to? This seems like another indicator and potential waste of time in exploring ADR and that raising a claim is the only option.
  17. BTW I believe it's considered a criminal not civil crime and so if your solicitor has done the right ground work and she attempts to leave the country without your written permission, you can have her arrested at the port of exit. Very stressful for all concerned of course and you would have to know how she planned to leave the country and be able to prove she doesn't have your permission. The other problem you may have and I didn't see anything about it above, is which nationality passport (s) are held for your child? All this is more applicable to sole uk passport. Dual nationality and another (possible) passport with complicate the matter 10 fold I'm afraid.
  18. Saw your thread re DVLA. Call 0116 255 6234 and open a case with them. Reunite http://www.reunite.org/ It's not just for getting your kids back but preventing the problem from escalating and being prepared. What you'd be looking at/concerned about is probably "unlawful retention". Hope this helps. Dave
  19. "So based on verbal comments....." I know it's nice to have warm cosy chats, but considering the possible route of your dispute, please don't forget to get the important points in writing. I think your right and sensible to try and disassemble the can of worms and treat it in parts, but again I would urge you wherever possible to get a written statement of the position\agreement. "If I was to win the same re registration of the E-Pace would result." Sorry, I don't really understand the importance of this comment in the light of what's been said above. If the vehicle is in breach of the requirements of the CRA and you have a case for breach of contract, then subsequent losses e.g. your breach of T&C are a consequence of, (flow) from that and are recoverable as damages are they not?
  20. Thanks for the reply. If you were the dealer making such a suggestion I'd be with it 100%. Given the attitude and actions shown so far; how likely is it that the dealer will simply put his hand in his pocket and refund for the vehicle and damages? I suspect I could just be adding another half day and more to the damages. As we've seen in all sorts of places, "Rights" are one thing, getting compliance to them is sadly another. Also according to "Rights" I only have to push the car across the road to where it was delivered. The costs of transport to Southampton then fall on the dealer. Clauses can't be inserted to remove your statutory rights. If I roll up with the car on a flat bed, I might end up having to take it away again or be in the position of having just the court papers, no money and no asset. (Sorry, trust and faith all used up on this one). Your suggestion could be a solution offered in negotiation after the claim is raised, but I think it will just get blanked at this point. If I were to have written commitment to a "Russian Exchange" money and car at the border, meet half way, do the swap, then fine. I know the claim process will be a burden, but my gut feel is there's no choice. I have an Independent Engineers report in CPR35 Court ready format in the pipe that should be ready on Tuesday. (I've already sent him 3 pieces of written confirmation from legitimate garages. For information: the likes of AA vehicle inspections and independent garage assessments, while very good, don't carry the weight of a proper report. The cost is only slightly higher by about £20 over an AA Inspection - which is really a peace of mind car check and not meant for litigation) Thanks again for the idea though.
  21. Yes. I see. Didn't realise there were so many worms in the can. Many Corporates have their own in house legals. Hard to imagine that JLR doesn't. Might it be worth a letter asking them to 'untangle the worms' so to speak and outline their position regarding where they believe liability lies between the parties Ultimately, it would appear that the 'group' will take the hit. Whether, directly or via a B2B event with the dealer. If you get a reasonable commercial legal, they may advise internally to stop dragging the issue as this will just add to the overall costs.
  22. Ok. So I go caught. Here’s the story so far. Apologies if it’s a bit long. It does cover a few weeks’ worth. Any help gratefully accepted though if you get to the end. Trawled through Autotrader and saw a 2011, Silver Skoda Superb Estate 1.8 SE TSI with 63,000 miles advertised from an independent car dealer (Botley Car Centre Ltd, Grange Road, Botley, Hants, SO30 2FU, Company No. 9993409, VAT No 190 0255 90). The ad said that it had a panoramic sunroof and an LPG conversion and this seemed interesting. I contacted the dealer by phone and asked about the car. The information I was given which included comments on how nice it was etc. and how nice the wheels were as they (the trader) had had them “completely refurbished”. This seemed plausible and reasonable. I asked about the LPG, but the sales representative didn’t seem to be aware of what it was or how it worked. I’d discovered from research that some engines are more suited to these conversions than others and that the major conversion companies can advise from the 4 character engine code of the suitability of such a conversion. I duly asked for the Engine code which seemed to check out satisfactorily with (PRINS). I found out that the system fitted to this vehicle was actually from PRINS a major supplier of LPG vehicle systems that are generally considered among the best. I also found out that there is additional annual service work and safety checks required for such a system. I asked the dealer if there was any evidence of such a service and because it was obviously gas stored under high pressure any safety check for this vehicle. The dealer looked through the service history they held on the vehicle but couldn’t find anything and made a call to Alternatech, the main UK importer who also happens to be in Southampton. He then said that the vehicle would be sent over to them for its gas service. All seemed good at this point. On 13/05/2018 I paid a deposit via a Halifax Bank MasterCard to hold the vehicle with a view to going down from London to view it first-hand, but unfortunately, I couldn’t get down there quickly. The dealer said, it wasn’t a big problem and that they’d deliver the vehicle for free. I could look it over and decide. They said that “with more than 70 quality cars on site it would actually help them out a bit with storage”. They said along with other sales, ‘flannel’ that they wanted their customers to be completely satisfied, that they would ‘stand by’ the car and that they would provide a “Six Months Driver Warranty”. They said that they thought I would be delighted with the car and if not their driver would bring it back. Things still seemed good at this point and I agreed a delivery date of 24/05/2018 in the early afternoon with them. I transferred the balance of the money by bank transfer on 23/05/2018 for a full purchase price of £7394 which appeared reasonable and was shown as just slightly below average on CarGuru for car like this. (Don't say it.) On 24th at 1:30 I got an email to say, “Good afternoon the drivers are on the way they are running a bit late kind regards xxx” The rest of the day passed and no car arrived. I sent an email the next morning asking what the situation was and explaining that I was unavailable until after midday. I made 4 calls to the dealer that were unanswered. Possibly a red herring, but, when I called from a different phone the sales rep picked up. He was apologetic and said that the driver had returned after getting to London because the Air-con had stopped working and that they wanted the car to be right, so it would be fixed before being delivered. He promised Tuesday 29/05/2018. I was obviously a bit concerned, but things can go wrong and on balance I still felt ok about the situation. 29/05/2018. No update. I called the dealer who said that a seal had been replaced and the car was all good and they would deliver the next day (30/05/2018). I explained that I had somethings booked for the afternoon/eve and would only be available until 4p.m. They said the car would be delivered early afternoon. On 30/05/2018 they delivered the car, but later in the day (14:50) than originally expected. I gave a quick visual inspection, checked the a/c, which was working. Ran their driver to the local Rail Station, car seemed to drive ok on the short distance, then took the car back home and put it in the garage. Pulling away and manoeuvring the vehicle I stalled it a couple of times which didn’t feel right, but I put it down to not being familiar with it and having previously driven a diesel with a much heavier clutch. Being a tight wad and not wanting Her Majesty’s to get even richer through taxes, I left it in the garage until Friday 01/06. Trotted off to the Post Office and had a nightmare with the counter staff over a change in taxation class as previously it was tax exempt as “disabled” (Someone may be able to comment on this aspect. Note: (1) There is no sign of any adaptation to the vehicle controls which may be a good or bad sign I don’t know. (2) this aspect of the vehicle tax class and the need to tax only at a PO was not revealed to me by the dealer before the car was delivered) The counter staff couldn’t cope with the dual fuel/ LPG which wasn’t correctly shown on the V5C. In the end I gave up with the PO worker (Who is apparently the Manager) and just taxed it with the intention of sorting it out directly with DVLA later. (However… the saga of the road tax continues later). So, someone may criticise (or shop me..) for driving the vehicle without road tax, because technically, when the dealer’s driver got out at the rail station and took the trade plates with him, I was without tax. It’s a fair cop officer, but have a heart. It’s just a half mile back to home and I claim ‘de minimis’ verses all the other stuff that goes on out there. (Of course we can’t say have a heart officer any more as it’s ANPR). 01/06 take car for first proper run to the Norfolk Coast with the family. Car feels a little bit ‘gutless’ at times, but I haven’t driven another of the same spec so go with it. It has a slight sort of hesitancy, but not too significant, possibly a misfire. I thought, see how it goes and investigate later. After enjoying an hour on the cruise control at 60 the car suffered from a grabbing sort of judder through the steering and a pull to the left. I pulled over to discover a problem on the near side front brake with excessive heat and brake dust – A binding calliper. (I know there can be other reasons for this symptom, but in any event it’s not right) I let the brakes cool off a while and continued at a reduced speed. (The Mrs and kids were not amused). As it became dark I noticed that the instrument backlights didn’t work properly and the speedo could not be properly read when the car was between 30 and 120. Monday 04/06 I called the dealer and explained the problems and a few minor niggles. We agreed that because it was a long way back to Southampton that I would have the problems assessed/investigated and report back to them. You can skip over the detail of the faults if you want Faults: Engine: After doing my own investigation and finding a German (VW\AUDI etc) specialist that would diagnose cheaply, we determined that the PCV on top of the engine was at fault and I was quoted £180 to have this repaired. I later spoke with the service manager of an Authorised Skoda dealership who confirmed the weakness in this component, that it was a likely cause, but said that it may not completely resolve the problem. Brakes: Three garages (who did a free brake check) said that the N/S/F calliper needed replacing along with discs & pads. Circa £500. Instrument lights: Where are the old days when you could scrape your knuckles with a hand up under the dash and change a 3w bulb? The official line (and apparently this is common on a whole raft of vehicles) is that the LEDs are not serviceable and so the instrument cluster must be replaced and re-programmed to work with the EMU at a cost of £1450. (No typo here). On further investigation there are Automotive specialist who will repair these lights and even offer a lifetime guaranty on their repair for as long as you own the car at just £140. (In discussion I offered the dealer the possibility of taking the vehicle to such, but see later). Interestingly, this seems to be a bit of an MOT anomaly. The interior illumination is considered a minor, but inability to properly determine the vehicle speed is a major and a failure. So, during the day, if you don’t go under any bridges or underpasses or tunnels you’re ok. At night over 30mph you’re not legal. How could this possibly be considered of satisfactory quality by a reasonable person or fit for purpose? Further faults: I thought I’d properly check the vehicle over myself in light of the above. Trying to remove the road wheels was not possible with standard tools. I hand to resort to a ¾” drive socket set and a 6ft extension because the wheel bolts were “gunned up” to a ridiculous torque. Fortunately, I got the bolts undone without further damage. However, I found that 6 of the 20 bolts were of the wrong profile and so did not seat properly in the wheel even at a stupid amount of torque. I have now tried to refer this through to trading standards due to the danger it poses as in the event of an accident the wheel fixing would not behave mechanically as designed. Difficult to prove etc. but I’ve passed the info on anyhow. Getting one of the wheels off revealed a dent in the inner ridge of the wheel and putting it on a balance machine shows that it is clearly out of true. The “Refurbished” paint is over and on top of the damage. As this is on the inside of the wheel it’s impossible to see without taking the wheel off. It is also the case that the buckled wheel would have been obvious to whomever balanced the wheels after the so called refurbishment. Incidentally, the wheels, are a different size to the advertisement, so technically the goods are not as described. The suspension/dampers and bodywork have suffered, but probably a bit more so than you might expect. My previous 17 year old Ford (not generally renowned for good bodywork) showed similar levels of surface corrosion. The rear dampers are shot, well it is 7 years old I suppose. The central locking has developed a mind of its own and doors randomly remain locked and need more than one attempt to unlock. Apparently, if it’s the mechanism in the door, once it fails to open at all, then you have to chisel the door open to fix it. If it’s the central control unit it’s less traumatic but more costly. Panoramic Sunroof: This worked well first thing in the morning when it was cold, but when the temperature climbed above 25C it started to judder and get stuck. In all honesty this appears to be of poor basic design and is apparently a not uncommon. The Skoda Service staff said they had replaced two the same week under warranty. The car body is steel, the sunroof frame aluminium alloy and there is apparently a plastic filler between the two. Heat causes different expansion rates in the different materials and the frame warps. This results in a failure of the sliding mechanism and often generates cracks between the components with resultant ingress of water (we haven’t had much rain since June so I have no idea whether there’s any leak on this car. On the 20/06/2018 the A/c failed again. So, unfortunately when it gets hot you can’t open the roof or use the a/c. Before the naysayers proclaim well what do you expect of a second hand motor. There are other problems and I was prepared to work with the dealer to find the most economical route to resolving some of these as I actually quite liked the car and the gas system seemed to work fine and would, I’m sure have proved to be a bonus in the long run. The bill of sale/Sales Invoice says, “Botley Car Centre Driver Warranty Six Months”. The sales ad and their Website says, “All vehicles come with a parts and labour warranty” Their website prominently displays “WMS Group Warranty” and “Standard & Extendible warranties” WMS Group Award-winning car warranty cover to protect you from expensive repair bills.” So I called them up and explained that there were quite a few things that I though needed attention and as they hadn’t given me any written particulars of their warranty (Contrary I believe to the 2008 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations) I wanted to know where I stood. At this point I got some stalling tactics about the company director going away. I explained that I was hopeful that we could work something out otherwise I would have to consider my right under the CRA 2015. I checked the dates and let it run a few more day. I sent an email to the director explaining the faults and added photographic and video evidence of the major faults and independent garage assessments and quotes for repair and asked where I stood with his warranty and good will. He replied that: “I’ve had a look at the recent MOT and have noticed that a couple of these items mentioned are advisory items. These are not mechanical failures and are therefore items not covered under the warranty. What we can do for you is have all the work carried out at cost.” I wrote back immediately, listing the faults and stating that I was exercising my short-term right to reject the vehicle under the CRA on all three grounds, not as advertised, unsatisfactory and unfit for purpose (any reasonable person would expect to be able to drive a vehicle legally at night) and please pay a full refund in 14 days etc. Craftily, the dealer had inserted a clause into his invoice stating that the purchaser accepts responsibility for return of the vehicle if statutory rights are exercised. I acknowledged this and said I’d return the car when the money was refunded. The dealer said,” We would need to see the vehicle before we can comment on anything further. Please let us know when you’re free to bring the vehicle back.” About this time the paper version of my rejection letter must have arrived by recorded delivery as he followed up with: "Thank you for your letter received 28/06/2018. Unfortunately, as explained twice now we need the vehicle back to go through what issues you are experiencing. We are unable to comment any further without actually diagnosing these faults beforehand. Please let us know when we can see the vehicle please." I replied that he hadn’t actually explained anything. That while it may be customary, Sections 20 and 22 do not give any express right to have the goods returned before the refund. I also explained that the guidance notes for Section 20, 118 say that “….if it was clear from looking at the goods that they breached the relevant requirement under the Act, there is unlikely to be any reason for the trader not to agree immediately that the consumer is entitled to a refund. In any case, there must be no undue delay, so the trader could not delay payment unnecessarily, for example in order to wait for time-consuming tests which are completely irrelevant.” (Before someone jumps to the dealers defence, he has video and photos and independent garage comment). I said he could see the vehicle at any time by appointment, but that I wasn't giving him the evidence before the refund. I think he knows full well, but I reminded him that Section 23 says that, if the consumer requires a repair, the trader must bear any necessary costs. I explained that the previous MOT contained two advisories one for tyre wear – which I had not mentioned at all, but which appears to have been swapped out for a second-hand\part worn Chinese tyre, (probably in contravention of The Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1994 (reg.7.)) and guess what, a binding near side front brake (so the fault was clearly present or developing at the time of sale. Also that a previous service report from February lists the failed instrument lights and brake issue. I reminded him that Section 20 (7) says the trader has a duty to refund and the consumer to make the good available for collection unless otherwise agreed. I said that as per my responsibility I would arrange a transporter for the car when the refund was forthcoming – which seems reasonable given his failure to deliver to me as agreed. Also that section 20 (8) says that “….the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them” and how did he intend to pay the transport company? I also advised him that he was not the only one to give less that good service as DVLA had apparently lost the V5C and I was informed by them that it may take 6 weeks to resolve this via v890 etc. etc. I pointed out that one provision of contract law was to put the wronged party in the position they should have been in if the contract had been properly fulfilled. That I therefore intended to claim for all damages (mitigated) that naturally flowed from his breach of contract. The dealer offered to collect the car for ‘inspection and examination’ the next morning and then to come back to me. I referred him to my previous letters and again asked for him to honor his obligations under the CRA. Needless to say, I have heard nothing more and now need to fire off the N1 form via MCOL. I’ve check and can’t find any trade association or ADR info for them and obviously they’re not going to offer it. I have registered with MCOL and am trying the work my way through the procedure and protocols etc. One thing that has come to light which I don’t like is that their verbal approach was one of ‘we’re an old family business that’s been doing this for long time and we want to do it right’ and their website claims, “Local family owned business established since 1981”, while the legal entity at Co House says, “incorporated on 8 February 2016”. Clearly a misrepresentation just like the advertising of 'standard and extendible' warranty. I’ve registered and set a ‘follow this company’ and am glad to have retained possession of the vehicle in case they should wish to phoenix the Ltd. (although I don’t think this would be for just one car claim). BTW I’ve also started a Section 75 claim via the Bank and Mastercard. So next step N1 I suppose. One small question, there seems to be an anomalies with the address (Grange Road vs Broad Oak) and post code (SO30 2FU vs SO30 2EU) between their website/invoice and Companies Ho. Should I use the Co. Ho. details and then, ask or, send another copy to the other wording and post code or is this overkill? How best to value the claim in respect of damages? What about any additional or ongoing costs if this drags on for an extended time (nothing much has gone right just yet ;-})? Is it reasonable to make a provision for return transport or just leave that out as the dealer’s problem? I’ve seen conflicting information about which county court under which circumstances. How best to proceed so that I may avoid if possible a trip to a Southampton Court? What is the legal state of ‘ownership’ in breach of contract? I think I’ve read that the dealer has to effectively buy back the car. But if the contract is breached is it ‘cancelled’ in which case is the ownership un-done? (It’s a steep learning curve and there’s a way to go yet). Thanks for reading (I know I’ve learnt a bit about the CRA and the difficulties of used car purchase and maybe some of this info will help other) and thanks in advance with any help with the actual claim part Kind Regards, Apologies again of the length, but you've got most of the detail.
  23. Hi, I'm new to all this so please send me off with a flea in my ear, if I'm talking rubbish. I agree with Heliosuk "I'd be interested about the discount though as something makes me think there is something wrong here." Also with DragonFly1967 "Ultimately, I believe it is down to JLR to put you back in to the position that you would have been in had the problem not arisen.", but is it JLR or the "trader" who holds the contract? From my limited understanding the trader is liable for all damages that flow from the breach of contract. The damages should attempt to put the party in the position they should have been if the contract had been properly fulfilled. i.e you get your car at the discounted price. In contract law the trader has to 'put you in that position'. If the vehicle's condition puts the 'trader' (dealer) in breach of contract and you exercise your statutory rights under CRA, then the damages that flow from that would include your discount. in whatever form it takes. You may need professional advice, but I would have thought that once a breach of contract is established the recover of the discount should be relatively easy.
  24. Between Post Office Counter/Royal Mail/DVLA previous V5C has been lost. I have receipt from PO Counters, but problem is, I've rejected vehicle under CRA and it's in my garage and I'd like my Road tax refunded - which I can't do without a V5C o,r I'm told applying in writing via a V62 etc. I have it in hand. Just posted info to help others avoid wasting time and money trying to complain with a machine. Will post vehicle issue in anotherthread Thanks all.
  25. Thanks, Already exercised Short-term Right to reject as above. I will, (honest gov) post the story, but enmeshed in a raft of other stuff at the moment - just found out Post Office have 'lost' the V5C that they should have delivered to DVLA - so this really is a lucky car. Let's pick it up in the proper thread, https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?488346-Inhuman-Post-Office Kind Regards,
×
×
  • Create New...