Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah I figured, unlikely I'll need credit anyway mortgage all paid off etc so I'll take that on the chin and learn from the experience. Probably would've beaten that too had I remembered the protocol, first time ever going through the process though sob it wasn't familiar to me  Oh well  
    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
  • 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

Suffered CO Poisoning after dealer worked on exhaust system


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5592 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

Hello,

 

I currently drive a taxi and for the past couple of months the vehicle has been off the road multiple times due to a problem with the engine surging. The dealership were unable to correctly diagnose the problem until after doing some research of my own I suggested it may be the particulate filter - at which point they confirmed it was the particulate filter and agreed to change it under warranty.

 

So yesterday the vehicle went into the service shop to have the filter replaced and last night I began my shift. 2 hours into my shift I noticed there was a strong smell of exhaust fumes in the car but initially ignored it thinking it was just from traffic outside. An hour later and I had a splitting headache and was feeling sick and shakey - so I took the car off the road and phoned my Dr.

 

My Dr told me to go to the hospital and have blood tests to check the Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen levels in my blood. By this time my hands had gone scarlet and my arms were starting to show pink blemishes, I was feeling sick, throbbing headache, dizzy and generally unwell.

 

The hospital first checked the CO levels in my lungs and stated the levels were higher than they should be so they put me on Oxygen for almost 2 hours to cleanse the CO out of my system.

 

The car was taken back to the dealership this morning and they stated it was simply due to the pipes being new and there is no leak in the exhaust system. When I phoned them to discuss a legal claim they simply laughed and have promised to call me back.

 

My thoughts now are to put a claim into small claims court for all earnings lost to date as a result of the vehicle not being roadworthy, loss of earnings for last night, travel costs to and from the hospital and damages for negligence which caused me to receive hospital treatment and cause my family very significant anxiety.

 

Can anyone give me some feedback on whether or not this is a suitable course of action? I was also considering contacting the local press, trading standards, environmental health and possibly the police if the situation is able to be deemed as criminal negligence.

 

I appreciate anyone's thoughts on this matter.

Paladine vs Abbey (2 Accounts)

Steps Completed

S.A.R. Sent on 31st October 2006

S.A.R. Received 1st November 2006

Letter received from Abbey saying statements and microfiche on the way Received 20th November 2006

Received 14 copy statements for 1 account and 12 for another on 21st November 2006. Began prelim prep.

Request for repayment of fees and schedule of charges sent on 27th July 2007.

Next Action

LBA going out on 10th August 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

as you have proof of carbon monoxide poisoning, I would sue the ar*e off them.

I would also report them to trading standards and the health and safety executive

 

fox

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can prove they were negligent then yes you have a valid claim;

ideally you would an independant report on the cars exhaust. I pressume from your post that no modifications have carried out since the incident and have you used it since with any problems?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can prove they were negligent then yes you have a valid claim;

ideally you would an independant report on the cars exhaust. I pressume from your post that no modifications have carried out since the incident and have you used it since with any problems?

 

I haven't used it since and the dealership looked at it this morning and said it was "stuff" burning off the new pipes. The other driver has not noticed any problems this afternoon so it could be that it was "stuff" burning off the new pipes, but the fact remains that I suffered CO poisoning as a result of whatever caused the problem.

 

My thoughts are they should have run the engine in the service garage until any substances had been burnt off before giving us the vehicle back (especially given that it is a taxi so poses a public health risk as opposed to "just" a private owner). But they didn't, neither did they warn us there might be toxic fumes produced by the new pipes burning in.

Paladine vs Abbey (2 Accounts)

Steps Completed

S.A.R. Sent on 31st October 2006

S.A.R. Received 1st November 2006

Letter received from Abbey saying statements and microfiche on the way Received 20th November 2006

Received 14 copy statements for 1 account and 12 for another on 21st November 2006. Began prelim prep.

Request for repayment of fees and schedule of charges sent on 27th July 2007.

Next Action

LBA going out on 10th August 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

What stuff!!; plastic covering? if it was a health hazrd should of come a COSHH Health and safety sheet, for use and installation and warning about what happens when gets hot.

Could also be the jointing compound?

I suppose not a problem if tearing along at 70mph, but sat in idling traffic fumes build up?

Garage should have h & S procedure/ risk assessment for this installation. Ask them if they have and what the toxic coating etc. is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I haven't used it since and the dealership looked at it this morning and said it was "stuff" burning off the new pipes. The other driver has not noticed any problems this afternoon so it could be that it was "stuff" burning off the new pipes, but the fact remains that I suffered CO poisoning as a result of whatever caused the problem.

 

My thoughts are they should have run the engine in the service garage until any substances had been burnt off before giving us the vehicle back (especially given that it is a taxi so poses a public health risk as opposed to "just" a private owner). But they didn't, neither did they warn us there might be toxic fumes produced by the new pipes burning in.

 

Hi im steve.

iv read this tread and i am a mechanic and have been for 7 years and i never heard any thing so silly, there is no way in hell you could get that from you exhaust fumes even if the exhaust was missing the ratio of air compared with the amount of exhaust fumes that the car produces is in significant, its a diesel yea?? must be as it has a particle filter ok.

 

a partical filter/A diesel particulate filter, sometimes called a DPF, is a device designed to remove diesel particulate matter or soot from the exhaust gas of a diesel engine. Wall-flow diesel particulate filters usually remove 85% or more of the soot, and can at times (heavily loaded condition) attain soot removal efficiencies of close to 100%. A diesel-powered vehicle equipped with functioning filter will emit no visible smoke from its exhaust pipe.

 

If you think how much traffic you sit in every day driving around being a taxi driver you would take in more fumes by opening your window in a traffic jam.

 

i can see your point your up set and fustrated that your car is not functioning correctly or as it should do so speak to the head office and ask them to get it sorted and would like a courtsey car in the mean time. Being as its not a stright forward problem bear in mind its not the garages fault its the manufacturer, Obviously its going to be a right pain as you vehicle is your livley hood but surley its better to have them on your side and not fighting against the company as i can tell you now you will get results in a much quicker and helpfuller way if you play ball and don't try any sue them.

 

also a diesel will produce a very low co content as they run much richer than a petrol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you meant that Diesels actually run with a leaner fuel/air ratio: there is no throttle. The combustion is much more complete and CO is very low compared to petrol engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...