Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, Following the submission of my defense, last night I received an email from DCBL indicating that the claimant intends to proceed with the claim (I've attached a screenshot of the email for reference) along with the N180 directions questionnaire. I'm unsure how they obtained my email, but I suspect it was through the courts' form when I completed the Acknowledgment of Service. This email almost slipped my attention. I have also today received a letter from court to state they have received my defense.  It appears they are requesting an online telephone hearing with the court. Could you please advise me on the necessary steps I should take at this point? Thank you for your assistance. Letter-Email 25-04-24.pdf N180 - Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track).pdf
    • Default Amount £9237.88, all this started in 2006 Admitted debt £9075.65 Weightmans added £1515.01 immediately they became involved, no explanation The Statement shows when Marlin bought debt in May 2011 £10439.25 Their statements, not received until the SAR, are based on this. Cabot deducted £1515.01on their statements in January 2019, again did not find this out until SAR. Weightmans added in  2007 after the CH1 etc was confirmed by the court £741.50, made up of Process server fees, Court Fee (they tried for bankruptcy), Solicitors fee and Land Registry fee. Unspecfied Legal costs were added by Marlin in March 2015, again I did not know this until statements received with SAR I had been paying monthly, without exception until December 2018. I am minded to take the property charge, CH1 amount ,deduct all my payments and the subsequent fees, and request/demand a refund on the final payment made? I consistently disputed Weightmans balances, but they never responded. I also told Mortimer Clarke/Cabot that I disputed their amounts.  
    • Just follow this link and have read of some threads so your familiar with the process https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track/#comment-5178739
    • Sorry,  I'm not familiar with terminology.  Direction questionnaire is what I've seen online as next step. Witness statement: I haven't gone that far, that's why I put the question marks.
    • 2. Is correct disregard 1. You must attend ad per the order 
  • 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

Sueing garage for poor workmanship


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5366 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,

I am hoping to sue a garage for poor workmanship which has nearly resulted in causing an accident.

While traveling on the M4 westbound across the Severn bridge into Wales, there was a sudden bang from the front of the car followed by a repetitive thudding sound. After moving onto the hard shoulder, a quick inspection revealed that the inner panel on the wheel arch had come loose – half had been dragging on the ground while the remainder had pushed against the wheel causing the panel to melt.

Before looking at the car, I had guided my wife under the barrier into the pedestrian area, not the easiest thing for her to do while 9 months pregnant. I was aware that the circumstances (high wind, coaches whizzing past only yards away, and a vertigo-inducing view of the severn river below) were unnerving her more and more as each minute passed.

After getting my wife back into the car, I managed to drive along the hard shoulder (with the panel still dragging) at 20 mph to safety in the Severn bridge toll booth car park. When breakdown assistance arrived, the evaluation raised serious doubts over the integrity of the car bumper.

An inspection of the panel on the opposite side revealed that:

· the plastic pin attaching it to the font bumper had not been tightened and was only a matter of time before being shook from the hole

· the screw holding the panel to the wheel arch was missing

· several attachments holding the paneling along the underside of the bumper were missing

· the padded engine shield covering the compete underside of the car was missing

This required him to re-attach everything with half a dozen cable ties. I explained the car had received body work repair to the front bumper recently. He confirmed it was likely that the missing fixtures resulted from this work.

The mechanic then inspected under the bonnet which revealed:

· The entire air filter been allowed to sit in place without being reattached

· The accelerator cable housing had not been bolted to the side of the air filter unit. This had allowed it to ride forward into the radiator causing significant damage to the radiator vanes

These details have all been reported in the diagnostic report by the mechanic. It is clear now that my car was not returned to me in the state as when it arrived at the garage.

As a result, I am now faced with costs of:

· replacing the radiator

· replacing the paneling

· replacing all the attachments

· purchasing a new engine underside shield

What also prays on my mind is that we were lucky not to be involved in the accident. If the whole front had broken free, the situation could have been much worse.

If you have had a similar experience (success or failure) in dealing with garages, your experiences will be really helpful.

Thanks for taking the time to read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why wait. You have been pretty thorough. Got all of your evidence. Photos too, I hope.

 

Give the garage 7 days to respond satisfactorily and then sue without any further notce.

 

This kind of dangerous work should also be reported to TS. You really have a social duty to this

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...