Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'motoring'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News


  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me


Found 10 results

  1. Hello All A work colleague of mine sold a van a few years ago. He did not complete the DVLA paperwork as the dealer wanted to onward sell the vehicle which happened shortly afterwards. About a week later it was involved in an accident and the other party which was a business, after several years of sporadic mail issued and obtained a County Court Judgement for damages, this despite knowing that my colleague was not at the time the owner or keeper. He did not know about this having moved house several times but recently had the unpleasant experience of Bailiffs knocking. I helped him to apply for a Set aside which stopped the Bailiffs and the Hearing is in May. The set aside application included several bits of evidence (receipts etc) to the court which I presume would have been served to the other side. My question is this; the opposing solicitors have twice written asking what evidence we intend to produce in Court. Am I right in thinking that we only need to provide our statements and evidence to them seven clear days before the Hearing? If we fail to communicate to them before that are we contravening any protocols? I see no reason why we need to tell them anything and thus assist them to counter our application before the seven days specified by the normal court process. They are cut throats and got a judgement against someone who had not damaged their client's vehicle or been the owner/keeper at the time. I would welcome any comments from forum members. Many thanks.
  2. Hi i bought a 2nd hand car 5 days ago costing £5300 after paying £250 as deposit to secure the vehicle while it was sent to have its MOT done by a MOT station of the dealers choice, i returned the following day and i paid £4250 via bank transfer and a further £800 by credit card i was told it had full dealership service history, 12 month MOT, it also was given a pre-delivery inspection by the seller himself. When i got home i was inspecting the service record and noticed it had not been serviced for 17 months some 20,000 miles ago in fact it had only 1 service in 4 years (50,000) i took it for granted when the seller give me a quick flash of the service manual showing the 7 previous services. I felt a bit conned after my phone call to him asking about service history, and on my viewing i was also told in front of a witness that it was full dealership history, i would not EVER buy a car without this criteria, the value drops considerably without this. I then got my local garage to service the car this was only 4 days into ownership at my cost, the garage then picked up on the hand brake not working at all and should not have past its MOT or a pre-delivery inspection by the seller. I rang the seller who's response was that the warranty would not cover it as its wear and tear and any repair would have to be at my cost at this end, i offered to have an independent inspection ie AA or RAC to have a look then it could be fixed at my end. I was finally offered the chance to take the car to the seller some 50 mile away to have a look, this could take upto a week to fix and i would have to arrange my own transport back home then back to pick up the car with no promise that its their fault. Any advice would be very welcome Thanks
  3. Today the Ministry of Justice announced that from March a new service is being rolled out across the UK and Wales allowing people charged with some minor motoring offences to enter a plea online from any suitable device (including mobile phones) 24 hours a day. This will be done via a secure Ministry of Justice website and is an alternative to a postal plea or attending court in person. Motorists will be able to view their case details, view evidence and make their plea remotely. Motorists who use the new service to plead guilty at the earliest possible stage will benefit by receiving the maximum credit. At present the facility is limited to the following offences: Failure to identity the driver Using the vehicle without valid insurance Driving in excess of the speed limit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11438914/Motorists-to-be-given-chance-to-enter-plea-to-minor-driving-offences-online.html
  4. A service allowing motorists in England and Wales charged with summary motoring offences to enter a plea online is being launched by the government. People charged with a minor motoring offence such as speeding or not having insurance will be able to enter a plea 24-hours-a-day via a secure website. The gradual roll-out of the "Make A Plea" scheme from March follows a successful pilot in Greater Manchester. The government says it saves time and money for the criminal justice system. Last year saw 4.5m minor motoring offences processed through the courts. The government is also considering whether the scheme could be used for other low-level offences. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31653760 Warning: Expect an influx of copy-cat sites from the same bottom-feeders who rip off the unsuspecting by charging for something you can do for free. Here's the official government website: https://www.makeaplea.justice.gov.uk/
  5. I was Googling today and found 2 stories which can be found here http://recombu.com/digital/news/tv-license-fine-rises-to-4000_M13268.html Forget it says about TV licensing in the title read the thread further down the link , the Government is proposing to increase motoring fines in 2015 to a horrible amount "Other financial penalties being increased in the same proposals include those for motoring offenses. Speeding on a motorway will soon attract a maximum fine of £10,000, whilst breaking the speed limit on dual carriageways will attract a fine of £4,000" Any thoughts please
  6. Unfortunatley I have fallen victim to what appears as a very reputable company on the outside.I was in a car accident some weeks ago, the person who caused the crash admitted liability. As I use my car for work purposes their insurance company Admiral confirmed they would supply me with a replacement car. This is when Accident Exchange got involved as Admiral instructed them.The car arrived very late and the delivery chap was in a panick (rushing) as he needed to get the train and go to collect his next car. I was asked to check the car and fuel. I questioned what was being signed about the insurance, what does it cover, can I drive it from variuos work places. The chap replied - You are covered for everything, dont worry, there is no excess either. I signed the docs as him being late caused me now to rush about for work. I asked about excess he said there isnt any.The worse of this being the car was stolen from my home place a few days later, I didnt even know it had gone till the police arrived to say they found the car on fire. First time ever this has happened to me. Which does make me wonder why I was targeted, my other car is high performance wasnt touched! Weird..... Accident Exchange then stated they would not get me another car unless I insured it, they had no interest in me at all. Basically just kept fobbing me off. I then asked what happens about the insurance, constant chasing, I had personal belongings in that car. They have now stated I am not covered for personal items, saying that i was shown an insurance form, which is a complete lie. And the latest is that they are looking billing £2500 excess for their car being stolen!! The MD emailed to say how much this has cost them and how they are out of pocket, they wouldnt be in business if they had losses, even the CEO said he will come back to me. Nothing at all.Ive now put in a county court claim for my items as its not right they can lie and treat people like this. Its disgusting. Bullying tactics are now being used about this claim against them.If your reading this, do not use this company. I will be writting to all their clients as this is not a reputable company, all they care about is the £££ note. Anyone with futher advice, suggestions or even if you have had troubles with this company will really help.
  7. I bought a car on Tuesday 28thAugust 2012 from a second-hand dealer. I had a few concerns regarding thevehicle at the time of purchase regarding the brakes, tyres & excessive noise when turning the steering wheel at full but was assured everything was in order, full MOT given and my concerns were merely due to the vehicle having been sat idle for 4 weeks. I immediately took the car to my local MOT testingstation and the repairs required are excessive to the amount of over £1000. In particular my local reputable MOT provider has noted an 'egg' tyre which they believe has been tampered with in order to disguise this serious issue in order to make a saleof the vehicle. The MOT testing station that originally passed the vehicle is next door to thesales garage and they undertake all of the MOT’s for the second hand vehicles sold by the dealer. What concerns me is how a vehicle that failed an MOT & then subsequently passed on the same day (27/07/2012) still has serious mechanical issues relating to the vehicle that were identified at the point of the initial ‘fail’ MOT on the27/7/2012. The vehicle was then classed as having a ‘pass’ MOT and sold with this. My local MOT provider has documented & identified the original ‘fail’ MOT issues still exist !!!!! This vehicle was to be driven by my 18 year old daughter (a new driver) with an‘egg’ tyre that could have resulted in a serious road traffic accident; thank goodness I had the foresight to have the vehicle checked by a reputable MOT testing station on the very same day of the purchase. I have contacted the dealer and they will not refund me for the vehicle which was only purchased 3 days ago and has not been driven since the purchase. I have also tried to call the original MOT Testing station several times but they will not take my calls! I strongly believe the two parties are working incollaboration in order to pass off vehicles to unsuspecting customers when the vehicles are indeed not road worthy and I wish to have both companies investigated. These Companies are selling a lot of vehicles on a weekly basis and need to be investigated before a serious incident occurs!I have reported them to VOSA & awaiting their response & am also now contacting SOGA in order to obtain further advice. Is there anything else I can do? Details of the MOT that passed the vehicle are below and are taken from the government website facility to check vehicle MOT history…. Details regarding the vehicle & the MOT station have been removed at this stage due to potential legal reasons. Date of test: 27/07/2012 Certificate issue refused (Fail) Test class: IV Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate Offside Rear Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.1.E.1) Nearside Front Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover insecure so that itno longer prevents the ingress of dirt (2.4.G.2) Front brakes imbalanced (3.7.A.2d) Advisory Notice issued Front Brake pad(s) wearing thin (3.5.1g) Offside Rear Shock absorber has a light misting of oil (2.7.3) Front brake discs slightly worn Movement in n/s front strut top when raised Date of test: 27/07/2012 Certificate issued (Pass) Test class: IV Test expiry date: 04/08/2013 Advisory Notice issued Offside Rear Shock absorber has a light misting of oil (2.7.3) Front brake discs slightly worn Movement in n/s front strut top when raised
  8. Hi, I am fairly new to this, I couldn't find a legal forum, so I put it here since it started as motoring offences. My main question is this... What right do you have to a trial by jury? I have been right royally shafted by the courts, and I know that if there had been a jury I would have been acquitted. My case has now been through crown court.... Do I have any further right of appeal? What happens with fines... There was no means test applied to my case. Can I apply to have my fines reduced ? In crown court no mention of guilt, or sentence, nor the amount of fine I would pay was made. The judge was pretty embarrassed at having to find me guilty when it was laughingly obvious I was not, he was wincing and couldn't look me in the eyes and virtually ran out of the court afterward. Could I call into question the validity of the hearing, since no findings were read to the court? I did have fun grilling the copper, he was furious, I caught him out on everything, lying, cheating, fraud, all in front of the judge (who wanted to hide). I also feel I got my 2k worth since it must have cost them more than that. But, I don't have much and 2000 is way over. I have been totally wronged by them, according to their own rules, that were flagrantly disregarded. It was farcical. I will be back later, and will give all the details of the case, but I don't have much time now.
  9. Hi! I recently bought a car I saw advertised on Gumtree by a 'private seller'. After test driving the car, and asking about its previous history, I noticed a section of poor paintwork on the front passenger side of the car. However was reassured the car had not had a serious accident and that it was in very good condition. Less than two months after purchasing the car it fell to pieces, with over ten faults. After having it valued it appeared to be over worth £1000 less than I paid for it, and I discovered it was a category C car. The log book I was shown when I purchased the car had no record of previous damage to the car, and also said the number of previous owners was half of how many the car actually has. After talking to the man who sold it to me it was obvious this situation could not be solved amicably no matter how hard I tried. After more research into the seller I have discovered he is actually a trader who buys cars from auctions, fixes them up himself poorly, and sells them on as private, lying about the history and denying that these were in fact written off cars. When confronted about being a trader he claimed 'I have many cars I keep at different peoples houses and that I get them to sell for me' therefore admitting he is in fact a trader. However he is claiming my car is the only car that wasn't a trader car. The situation has lead to a court case as the seller would not agree to discuss, nor attempt to resolve the situation, and I plan on reporting him to consumer direct. I was wondering if anyone had any advice or new anything about these kind of situations? Thank you all for your help!
  10. Question: When is a piece of standard equipment in a Ford motor car not a piece of standard equipment? Answer: When Ford UK decide it is not despite ALL publications and websites (including independent ones) saying that it is. I recently purchased a Ford Galaxay and ALL the brochures, web sites and independent assessment sites for the car clearly stated that Galaxy came with a tonneau cover as standard. fine you might thnk but when it finally gets delivered there is something missing. The STANDARD tonneau cover. When queried you are told that although it states it is standard equipment it is in actual fact an OPTIONAL EXTRA!!! Ford UK seem not to understand the difference between these two phrases. Even if you take this to director level, Mark Ovenden contact him via email on movende1@ford.com, you are still told that the web site and brochures are out of date and has not been standard equipment since early 2010. Despite sending them copies of the website in 2011, 2012 and picking up the 'new 2012 brochures' ALL which state it is standard, Ford UK still insist that it is not. Ford's new slogan - More as Standard.. should really read....... 'More as standard as long as you pay through the nose for the standard equipment which we will class as optional extras even though we clearly state it is standard. Complain and we will ignore you and tell you that you are wrong and did not understand, and we will treat you like the **** of the earth as we have your money now so we dont care..' Not much of a slogan for increasing its customer base I know but at least it would be accurate.
  • Create New...