Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks. So effectively you paid by cash. Please follow the link to understand your position when you pay by cash or you paid by bank transfer for a used car or anything else. Of course it's a bit late now – but you should bear in mind in the future and other people who visit this thread will also benefit. The dealer says that you were provided with a copy of the warranty. I think it would be worth asking the dealer the date upon which this warranty was emailed to you. In the meantime, your statutory rights will help you to the extent that you are entitled to buy an item – even a second hand car – which is of satisfactory quality and remain that way for a reasonable period of time. What is "satisfactory quality" depends on all of the circumstances of the transaction. Although this car was very cheap, it was comparatively low mileage for a car of that age. It seems to me that for it to pack up so seriously after only about eight months of ownership and only 200 miles or so, that it was not satisfactory quality. You have had some benefit from it. Even though you only drove for 200 miles or so, that was your choice and you could have driven it more if you had wanted – even though this might have meant that the gearbox would have packed up earlier – but you will never know. We will say that you have had eight months of benefit from it.  This means that you wouldn't be entitled to recover 100% of the purchase price. You would be entitled to recover a reduced some to reflect the use you have had from the cart. If we say that a car of that value/age/mileage should normally have lasted you for, say, three years without any serious defects emerging, then we can say that you have probably had something like about 30% of the use. This would suggest that you would be entitled to recover about 65% or so of the purchase price. In principle this would mean that you might be justified in thinking about claiming about £1700. Of course we don't know what the warranty says. Whether it really does exclude work on automatic gearboxes. The reason it will be interesting to see the warranty and to understand what it provided for is that there is an outside chance that instead of relying on your statutory rights, we might be able to say that as you didn't know what the warranty was about, you are reasonable in assuming that it covered automatic gearboxes. Did you pay an additional sum for the warranty? Or was it part of the deal? I think we need to know more about the cost of repairs to understand whether a repair would cost less than £1700 in which case it might be worthwhile claiming for that – or whether a repair would cost more than £1700 in which case it would make economic sense to recover the £1700 and then move on. So I think that we need to understand when was the warranty apparently sent to you? We need to see the warranty. We need to understand what the cost of repairing the vehicle might be.  
    • With only 12% of Tesco Bank current accounts used as primary accounts, the organisation will discontinue this service from 30 November 2021View the full article
    • Roughly it’s only done about 200 miles since I’ve had it . It was a cash loan and then we bought the car with the cash . 
    • Please notice that I've restructured your post in order to introduce spacing to make it more readable – especially on a small screen. So you bought a car and even before you collected it you had to pay an extra £240 to have a cam belt replaced. So we can say that you paid about £2700 for the car. How many miles has it done since it was bought? Are you able to tell us? When you say you took a loan out for the car, was the loan specifically provided by the lender for the purchase of the car? Or was it a cash loan and you then went on to spend the cash on the car?   Also do I understand that the dealer is proposing to sell the car for a certain amount of money and then to help you buy a new one with you making up the difference from your own funds?
    • Had the cam belt changed before we collected it on 3.12.2020. We stated we never had a warranty and he said oh it should’ve been emailed to you. But I never had it.  Fault is , when driving in auto it switched into manual ( which has only 3 gears ) when you turn ignition off them back on it goes back into auto but happens again after a while and on the display it says check gearbox and a spanner comes up. We took it back to garage they drive round in it all week apparently and it never happened so we had it back and then it then started juddering and cutting out completely and i took pics this time of the error message . Took it back to garage and he said it was the actuator. The car is still at the garage as not sure how to process further . My partner took out a loan for the car but paid on his card . 67,611 miles when bought and I’ve hardly driven it . 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

slip on shop floor


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4565 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

Hi all,

A friend of mine bought a fast food takeaway shop and became the owner outright on 1/10/2007. before that date he had no involvement in the running of the shop.

Recently he has had a letter from a firm of solicitors stating that they are representing someone who slipped on the floor of the shop on 22/07/2006 and that they intend to commence legal proceedings against him.

Common sense dictates that we send a letter telling them to go to hell and find the previous owner, but before we do this, I thought I would seek advise here just in case there are some ridiculous reasons as to why he could be liable under the some crazy law of this country.


So does anyone have any advise as to this situation? Does anyone know of any laws that may protect the Claimant, or indeed, any Laws that protect the owner?


Many thanks all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

id fire off a letter to the solicitors stating that you have no knowledge or liability for this accident as the shop was purchased from the previous owner on whatever date.


something like this should suffice..



Dear sir or madam.


I am in reciept of your letter dated (date), in which you state that you intend to being litigation against me for an accident which occured on (date).

Please note that at that time I was not the proprioter of this establishment, I took over the shop on (date), which i have full documentation etc.


Therefore I am not liable for any incidents which occured before this date.


(then choose one of the following statments)

......The previous proprioter (name), left the forwarding address of (address if you have it)......


.....I do not have any contact details for (name), the previous proprioter of this establishment, but if I do have any contact with them in the future at all I will pass on your details and ask them to contact you.....


Yours sincerely

(your name)



amend to suit, then send off by recorded delivery.


sending it by recorded means oyu will get proof that they have recieved it, so if they try and start anything in future they cant deny they got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the important thing is making sure you DONT admit any liability for the incident, in any way, that way if they instead decide to continue pursuing you regardless then they will have to prove that you are liable for it, and that you were the proprioter at the time.


Obviously you will have documentation from the sale of the business giving clear dates etc when the change over occured. You shouldnt really have to produce this but if they start being funny about it you can easilly shut them up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again thanks for the advise, but neither of us are stupid enough to admit any type of liability.

More like we will offer nothing (even the owners name at the time of this allegation) and let the solicitors waste as much money as possible chasing a lost cause

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all paperwork in order, it would be easy enough for your friend to prove it had nothing to do with him. It wouldnt really benefit anyone letting the powers that be chase around for months for nothing, and it would add closure for your friend to the end of the matter.

Please note that although my advice is offered, you should consult your legal representative before taking ANY action.



have a nice day !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

one thing you might get is people coming and asking for information about the shop itself, or people wanting to take photographs. make sure that if they wish to do this they make an appointment in writing first before attempting this.

also make sure that if any refurbushment of the shop has taken place since it was taken over, they are notified of this, as some claims firms are notorious for making things up or taking photos of things a a certain angle which makes them appear to be dangerous or something. obviously the shop will have been visited by environmental health and/or someone fro the HSE in order for it to keep trading as a food shop.

i used to work for a solicitors which handled claims for various things, personal injury was one of the things they handed, and as a claim administrator i used to make sure files were kept up to date, timescales were adhered to etc.


some of the claims i saw were quite obviously frivolous ones, which i would send back to the assesors for a second opnion when things didnt add up, before letters got sent out.

things that didnt add up were things like pictures taken at funny angles or which were blurred or didnt show what they were supposed to, files which contained contradicting statements by the claimant and witnesses, or claims which were missing vital info so unbelieveable theyd need furthur clarification.


one such claim stated that the claimant had said they had fallen over inside a takeawy, due to the floor being slippery, but the pictures that were included in the file showed that the floor of the shop was carpeted. turned out that the claimant had fallen over outside on the pavement, and it was nothing to do with the take away its self. more than likely the claimant had been drinking (the incident took place in the early hours of the morning, at a takeaway/restaurant 3 doors down from a night club), andhad simply fallen over their own feet or something, either way,the claim was quietly dropped.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...