Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

if a car is sor from a dealer who goes bankrupt who owns the car


cheffie9
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5654 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi Cheffi,

 

I would contact the SMMT (Soc. of Motor Manufacturers & Traders) if I were you as the vehicles you hold are probably held on a stocking plan which could make ownership a problem.

 

Viano

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bankrupt main dealer actually owned these vehicles then they now belong to the receiver.

 

If they didn't, then the vehicle revert to the original owner.

 

Despite currently holding the vehicles, you are still another unsecured creditor and will be required to surrender the vehicles to their rightful owner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some clarity wouldn't go amiss here but as I understand things, there are two cars which are the property of a company (A). A passed over possession of those cars to another company (B). There is no suggestion that B was unlawfully in possession of A's cars.

 

In turn, B passed the cars to the OP's company © for the purpose of servicing and repairs. If B had no interest in or benefit to derive from effecting the repairs, it seems to me a reasonable conclusion to draw that B contracted with C as agent of A in order to repair and improve A's cars and as such the contract made by B with C was for A's benefit. C are now in possession of A's cars having carried out the repairs. There is no suggestion the cars are subject to HP.

 

In my view C is entitled to exercise a lien over A's cars as an unpaid bailee. Further, that C may exercise the powers conferred by Torts (Interference with Goods Act) 1977 section 12 so long as C follows the procedure set out in the Act.

 

It seems to me that in the circumstances outlined above the liquidation of B is of no consequence.

 

As I say, some clarity wouldn't go amiss so if I have misunderstood it would be a good idea to clarify the precise position and inter-relationship of A, B and C before running off to flog the damn things.

 

x20

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't interpret the situation that way. The OP has mentioned SOR in the title. The way I see it is Dealer A lent Dealer B the cars on SOR. B put the cars into the OP's garage for repairs. B has gone bust, and the OP's garage are holding the cars in lieu of money owed by B. But the cars belong to A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...