SOGA how much is the chance to win a court case

[Conniff]

We are pushing 5 months now so I think you will have been deemed to have accepted it and that would mean that you either get it repaired or replaced. Only if a repair will be too expensive will you be entitled to a replacement or your money back and that is the choice of the seller.

 

You might have good reason to get the car back on the road as quickly as possible, and court might seem the way to speed things up, but courts don't like being the first line of attack.

 

You should write to the dealer by recorded mail and explain what has happened and ask him his intentions for repair. You should not use the telephone unless you can record the call, but a hard copy is the best way to go.

 

When you get a response to that letter, then you can decide what to do which will depend on the reply given.

[Conniff]

Did you give him any time limit of a reply?

 

Is the car on finance and if so, is it HP or car loan?

[Conniff]

Basically, there is no defence.

You bought a car and 17 weeks later that car became faulty. You contacted the seller and they refused to comply with the Sale of Goods Act 1979(as amended) in that they would not repair the car and bring it back to it's advertised condition.

 

The seller does have some protection under the regulations in as much as he can repair, replace or refund.

 

Is your claim for the amount of the repairs or for the cost of the car as you have rejected it ?

 

Have you received a copy of the defence ?

 

Do you have the original advert or was the car chosen by visiting the lot ?

Edited August 18, 2010 by Conniff

[Conniff]

I have just had a read and I would say that you have done everything possible to resolve this matter both amicably and cost effectively. His refusal to respond to any correspondence will go heavily against him. I cannot see how he can defend this at all.

 

He lodged his defence on Monday, if he did it by post, you should have received your copy at the same time. Give him until Friday and if you haven't received it, send him an email asking where your copy is. He must send a copy to 'all' parties, so include in your email that under CPR rules he must do that.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Conniff

[Conniff]

A court victory will be a good start towards getting recompense Sam. This seller has point blank refused to adhere to the soga and made no attempt whatsoever to abide by the regulations.

 

So why do you say that?

[Conniff]

Oops - I mis-read you.

 

Yes agree, report it to the court

[Conniff]

Morning Rob,

 

Were you told that the car had been serviced when you bought it ?

 

Why did you change the glow plugs ?

 

Why did you change the windscreen ?

Edited August 21, 2010 by Conniff
Post changed after viewing PM

[Conniff]

Yes got the defence ok.

 

How much did he reduce the price because of the windscreen crack ?

 

Did it cost you more to replace than the reduction ?

[Conniff]

You said you had the windscreen 'replaced', was it replace or just repaired ?

[Conniff]

So he reduced the car by £50 and you had a new windscreen fitted that cost you £75 - is that correct ?

[Conniff]

Ok got that.

 

You also say '11 months' MoT - did the car have a new MoT when you bought it or did you have the MoT done ?

[Conniff]

Now the servicing.

 

You were told that the car didn't need a service for another 12,000 miles, was there any documentation to back that up ie a stamp in the service book ?

[Conniff]

I'm trying to get at why you felt the need for an air filter, oil filter and oil change.

[Conniff]

So there is 'no' service stamp in the book after 30,000 miles and 'no' documentation saying that the car had been serviced after 30,000 miles ?

[Conniff]

It is very sensible to have a service done as you can never be sure that the paperwork is correct.

 

You were told by the seller that it didn't need another service for another 12,000 miles ?

 

Was the air filter dirty and looking as though it hadn't been changed for many miles ?

[Conniff]

Good - but you were told it didn't need a service for 12,000 miles ?

 

I'm off for some breakfast now Rob, will be back later, are you available today ? you don't have to be, we have the whole weekend if you have other things to do.

[Conniff]

Including the MoT repairs but minus the windscreen, how much have you spent on the car since purchase ?

[Conniff]

That's fine, now last, but not least, how long was it between when you first saw the car and picking it up ?

 

Did you pay a deposit on the car when you first saw it or pay in full ?

[Conniff]

I will type up a summary for you to take to the court with with you and post it up later today.

 

One other thing - was the side window fixed when you picked it up ?

[Conniff]

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/125-allocation-questionnaires-a-guide-to-completion-

 

This is for the bank claim but is very relevent to you and should help.

 

I think you should say that after failing to respond to xxx emails, letters and phone calls, in which I made generous offers and suggestions for a satisfactory outcome, I don't feel that mediation would bring about a result.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Conniff

[Conniff]

Seeing Justice done will be thanks enough Rob.

[Conniff]

On xxx (date) I responded to an advertisement in the Autotrader publication for a Renault Scenic Reg No xxx priced at xxx.

On initial inspection it was found tha have a problem with the action of a side window and a crack in the windscreen, serious enough to fail and MoT examination. I was promised that these problems would be fixed before collection and on these promises, I left my car as deposit for the Renault.

 

I returned 2 weeks later to collect the car on xxx and the windscreen had not been fixed and I was offered a reduction of £50 which I accepted not knowing the true cost of a replacement windscreen.

 

The car had 1 months MoT remaining and I booked it in for a test at my own expense but it subsequently failed that examination on the following points:

 

Rear registration lamp faulty.

Offside Headlight

Nearside steering rack gaitor lose

Brake pads

Windscreen.

 

There was an advisory that the brake discs were worn.

 

I had the faults repaired as well as the brake discs replaced to eliminate any future safety problems.

 

On further examination, it was discovered that the air filter was in a very bad state indicating that the car had not been serviced in accordance with the manufacturers servicing schedule. Because of this, I also had an oil and oil filter change as well as the air filter. I also authorised the cambelt and associated ancillary parts to be change as further examination showed that it had not been changed recently, again to eliminate any future engine damage or safety issues.

I also replaced the glow plugs so there would be no starting problems during the forthcoming winter.

 

I paid a total of xxx to have the faults repaired, to obtain an MoT certificate and for the authorised preventative maintenance.

 

On xxx (date), 128 days later, whilst driving to work, there was a sudden loss of power and the emission of a lot of smoke.

The car was towed to the NORTHAMPTON branch of NATIONWIDE AUTOCENTRE, by the AA and left for diagnosis.

 

On xxx I was telephoned by Nationwide and told that an over pressurisation in the oil system had caused the TURBO and INTERCOOLER to fail and was given an estimate of £xxx. They could not give me a quote unless the engine was dismantled for closer examination.

 

I contacted the defend on xxx who told me "it must be the turbo" and gave me the phone number of a company where I could purchase another turbo.

 

I contacted the defendant again and was told "he did not intend to do anything about is as it was the turbo". He did not request to see the car for examination.

As I could not afford to have the repairs carried out, I bought a towbar and towed the car to my home in MILTON KEYNES where it remains unrepaired.

 

I was advised by a friend to contact TRADING STANDARDS who told me to reject the car for a full refund and this I did on xxx.

 

I have contacted the defendant on numerous occassions but he has failed to respond.

 

The defendant was also told that I needed the car by xxx to take my disabled wife to BIRMINGHAM to attend the funeral of her mother. We, again, did not get any response from the defendant nor the offer of a loan car so we could attend the funeral and consequently my wife could not attend.

 

I have, subsequently, been told that for my protection, the Sale of Goods Act 1979(as amended) and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumer regulations gave me the right to take the car directly to the defendent for repairs at his cost and that it also says that any faults that appear within the first six months are deemed to have been present at the time of sale. It also says that it is up to the seller to prove these faults were not present at the time of sale and not for me, the consumer, to prove they were.

 

I haven't checked this for spelling or grammatical errors, I will let Sam have a look first so he can make any point he thinks should be made.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Conniff

[Conniff]

Language lesson Rob.

 

Sent = has been done - I have sent it off.

Send = to be done - I will send it off.

 

We will make an Englishman out of you yet.

[Conniff]

You can't defend something you have no knowledge about, you can't insist it was something if you have not even seen the car let alone examin it.

 

If it is indeed only the turbo, which the initial symptoms suggest, a diagnosis by a simple telephone call is impossible to carry out, the nearest you can get is 'it sounds like' but you then must take a look to confirm what is suspected.

 

I do agree with the oil overpressurisation point made by helios, and the fact that it could just be supposition and touting for work by Nationwide, but we don't know what they did to come to the conclusion they have. 'Heavy smoke, must be the turbo' can never be a definative statement.

 

The main points of the claim is the refusal to look at the car or to respond in any way to correspondence. Recorded delivery letters are not required as email has the same standing in law as does mail delivered by Royal Mail.

 

As the problem happened, and was reported, during the first six months, it is assumed to have been there at the time of sale and the seller should have taken the car in and had it examined himself but has refused, so can make no legitimate diagnosis and have no legitimate defence.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Conniff

[Conniff]

Email him right away and ask him if he is willing to jointly have a completely independent engineer inspect the car.

 

If he responds yes, then you should find someone who is independent and not a recommendation from the seller.

 

If he responds yes, then that is how you answer the court, if he says no then you tell the court you are willing but the seller refuses.

 

It is true that you don't actually know what is wrong with the car or what caused it and a proper engineers report will settle this once and for all so you should show willing to have it inspected.