Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Do I wait until I get actual dates or reply saying they are wrong about it not being SB.    Can I fill in set aside form without date as awaiting SAR?
    • you never deferred to erudio. the debt is statute barred  any deferment to slc would have at the latest been 2012, the date of your last written and signed ack of the debt.   there are 10's of like backdoor erudio threads here already dx  
    • My almost ready witness statement ...    In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it.   Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself.   There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian.   As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document.   It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving.   There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper.   There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.     As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusion: VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court   Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land.   The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim.   Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.
    • I have read that thread. I will need to wait for last date of deferral to get key information to go back to Drydens.   I already asked for them to set aside, they refused but they have sent a message to court suspending warrant of control and put account on hold whilst they answer my SAR. I have also requested SAR to SLC.    
    • you do NOT need to pay it and anyway that would not remove the ccj, its there on your file paid or not for 6yrs, a paid ccj even with a cert of satisfaction is as bad as a non paid one.   the ONLY way to remove it is to set it aside.   sadly you the very worst thing you could have done with ANY debt on your credit file or not that you last used or paid or wrote about to the debt owner in the last 7 yrs....you ran away,,,moved without informing the debt owner of your correct and current address.   erudio and drydens are masters at doing backdoor ccj's. they are ofcourse totally wrong that the defaulted date is the sb date...well not when your last written/signed ack of the debt was more than 6yrs before the claimform date.   now how do you remove it....go read that thread ...carefullly then comeback here and lets see if you understand how.   dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Faulty Gearbox.


driver21
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3290 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

I bought a 52 plate Renault Clio Automatic from a dealer in Jan this year. The day after I took it home a fault light came on on the dash and the car went into a safe mode. I looked it up in the handbook and saw that this was a gearbox fault and to go to a Renault dealer to have it checked. I Told the dealership of this and they said they would sort it for me. After about 5 visits to their workshop with no improvement they had it diagnosed at a Renault Garage. Renault said that there was a pressure problem and that changing the "EVM Valve" might help. I was then told, by the dealer that this part was not covered by the 3 month guarantee I had on the car and I would have to pay the £600 repair bill myself. I contacted Consumer Direct who said under the SOGA They were liable for the repair. I wrote to the dealer advising them of this and after a few phone calls I agreed to pay £250 towards the cost and they paid the rest. I probably shouldn't have done this but I just wanted to get it done. This seemed to have worked but 5 months later the fault reoccurred. I went back to the Renault Garage who replaced the valve because there was still a warranty on the part. They told me that if it had already gone wrong again that there was a problem with the whole gearbox and that it probably needed replacing. They also said that the dealer was aware of this and they had chosen only to have the valve replaced. I wrote to the dealer asking them to sort it out but they didn't want to know at first saying that the guarantee had run out. After speaking to Consumer Direct again I wrote to the dealer again saying that if they didn't replace the gearbox I would go to Court to get a judgement against them. I received a reply yesterday, they offered to put in a refurbished gearbox, at a cost of £1200, to which I should contribute £500. Does anyone think this is fair or should I hold out and file a claim against them. I just need a bit of advice as to what to do. Sorry for the long post but this has been going on for months now and I'm a bit frustrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Have you now had the car longer than 6 months? SOGA only applies for the first 6 months from purchase, and although the problem clearly occurred within that time, I am not sure how hard it is applying the terms of SOGA once you are beyond that time.

 

No help now, but I don't think I would have paid anything for the original repair, and if the dealer had refused to pay for it I would have rejected teh whole car under the terms of SOGA and got my money back.

 

btw, the "warranty" he gave/sold you did not in any way deminish your rights under SOGA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had the car now since Jan this year, but Consumer Direct say SOGA is valid for up to 6 years after purchase. I've now agreed to pay the £500 for the repair, I might have had a good case in court but it all takes so long and the Judge might have said a part payment, after all this time, would be fair. I'm still very angry about how this has turned out because I went to a dealer so I would have more peace of mind and have been ripped off. I have learned a lesson now and won't make the same mistake again. I shouldn't have paid for the first repair but didn't know my rights properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Has anyone had a fault with an automatic gearbox on a Megane? My Dad's has one with an 02 plate but with only 20,000 miles on the clock. The developed a gear box fault in March 2009 and several visits to the Renault agenst failed to identify the cause, but he was advised to have the AVM valve replaced as 'experience' showed that was the solution. He shelled out £600 in repairs but the fault was soon back. He has now paid for a new gearbox. We suspect that this a recurring fault because, whomever we consult, including gearbox specialists, seem to say that they are familiar with the fault and it's down to this vavle. One Renault repair agent has even gone so far as to say that the replacement didn't solve the problem because it may have been wrongly fitted. We have, of course, written to Renault who deny that this is a recurring fault and claim that it has never been reported to them before!

 

Any supporting experience from forum members would be useful as we intend to battle on ............... !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have looked at many sites and forums and a lot of people are having problems with this gearbox. Most French car makers use this one as standard so I can't imagine that they don't know about these faults. :evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you now had the car longer than 6 months? SOGA only applies for the first 6 months from purchase, and although the problem clearly occurred within that time, I am not sure how hard it is applying the terms of SOGA once you are beyond that time.A

 

Sorry, wrong.

 

SOGA applies for far longer.

 

What changes is the burden of proof. Up to 6 months, the retailer needs to prove that the fault was not present at sale; after 6 months, the buyer needs to prove that the fault was present at the point of sale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

hi, thought it was just me,..got same fault on my 02 scenic auto...when cold and over accelerate gearbox light comes on, restart and it resets itself,dealer will not honour warranty even though i said they sold it me with fault,..so far only had to replace a pulley flywheel,not working so dreading any thing major..lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...