Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • i hope Yasmeen Couser is going to be at this hearing else their WS is totally inadmissible.   dx  
    • Government launches call for evidence on video game loot boxes     READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-call-for-evidence-on-video-game-loot-boxes
    • They can still write to you after the 14 day limit but they can only pursue the driver as they have lost the ability to chase the keeper.   I hope that you have not divulged who was driving. Never talk to these guys on the phone. They lie and harass as well as taping conversations.   Only write and do not appeal as they never agree that the motorist is right.   Please reply to the questions on post 2 so we can give you the best advice to avoid paying these crooks.
    • Hi   I think you also need to send this company a Subject Access Request (SAR) simply asking for 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whichever format they hold it in whether it be written, email phone recording etc.   They then have 30 Calendar day to respond only once they have acknowledged receipt of your SAR request. note a SAR if now Free   As for them stating they don't have to stop processing your data they need to comply with the General Data Protection Regulations 2018 (GDPR) which is now part of Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA)   This link breaks down the GDPR so its easier to understand your rights:  https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/index.htm    
    • There is so much wrong with their WS.   You stopped for a very short time yet she seems to equate that as being parked! That flies in the face of what parking means.   There have been several cases in Court where Judges have defined the meaning of parked. Not one of them describes it as stopping for a few minutes with the engine running and the driver remaining in the vehicle. And why on earth is POFA being included on s28? The airport comes under Byelaws and that land is specifically not covered by POFA.   Then on s30 she cites Parking Eye v Beavis talking about establishing a contract between the parking company and the motorist to park!   then from s33 to s40 they are trying to bamboozle the Court by trying to minimise the effect of the Byelaws. It is the borough of Southend on Sea that decides the rules there- https://d1z15fh6odiy9s.cloudfront.net/files/sen-byelaws-1983-297c76b8.   S12 and s13 confirm that the signs erected by the Council are the ones to be observed.   You can also use the Forum search box and cases that have been won against VCS above.   s46 The claimant submits the signs are not prohibitive!    The dictionary description of" Prohibitive"- (of a law or rule) forbidding or restricting something.  If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...Is she dumb or what. s47 Further misdirection-this is nothing to do with parking s48 refers to the" lawful occupier" not the landowner which is Southend Council.  I end up going back to s5 which gives the impression that VCS complies totally with their Code of Practice and therefore you, the motorist must be guilty. yet Time and time again VCS loses in Court because they have not complied with their CoP.   The Parking Prankster indicates some of them.  http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/02/   and in the case below they took someone to Court knowing that they did not have the right to take this person to Court at all. http://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1   VCS v Ms O C8DP9D8C Birmingham 1/8/2017 this was taking a motorist to Court  when the contract for the car park was down to Excel. VCS have lost many cases in Court knowing that they did not have the right to sue as there was no contract between them and motorists-total breach of their CoP and should have put their ability to access motorists data  were it not for the weakness of DVLA and the IPC. VCS v Ms M. 3QZ53955 25/01/2016 Claim discontinued. Costs awarded to motorist. as above-masquerading as Excel yet again.
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 4 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Will we be in trouble - faulty pedgero **WON**


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3443 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone,

 

I purchased a 4X4 from a dealer two months ago paid £2495 for the car and was given a 3 month warranty.

 

Drove it for two weeks when the back brakes started to grind got it check and found that the brake pads had been worn to extinction.

 

Took it back and the garage (after a row) replaced the pads.

two weeks later the fan belt went so we took straight to the nearest garage they replaced the fan belt along with the power steeering belt and one other that they said were in a bad way as well.

 

Two days ago we had to get it towed off the M1 along with a trailer with livestock as it lost power overheated and the oil light came on.

Upshot is that the garage got the car back and are saying we drove it with no oil which is ludicrous as any time we are towing horses we check fluid levels tyre pressure etc. before set off as a matter of course.

 

I am now sending a letter reffering to SOGA 1979 asking for a full refund as not fit for purpose.

In the meantime the car is parked at the front of the dealership (leagally).

 

I intend to put a notice on the car saying Engine failed after purchasing from this garage 2 months ago and they don't want to know (even with a warranty supplied). Can I get it any trouble legally over doing this?

 

thanks

 

 

Eli

Link to post
Share on other sites

I put the signs in the window yesterday, they called me at 5pm to offer advice on how cars left out over night in that area tend to get vandilised!! The car is not in any way driveable (smokes after 1 min of the engine running).

 

Do you think I might predudice my case in any way taking this action? I want them to feel the kind of pressure this situation is putting me under. I don't think he taking me seriously because I am a female.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ellis01

 

The problem is that if you leave it there, it could get stolen, etc. You will be creating a problem if they offer to return the money for the vehicle. Write the letter

send it recorded. Here is a template you can amend. If this gets to court you don't want the court discussing what you did, but you want the court discussing what they did. You need to be professional and but the emotional stuff in the back of your mind.

On the letter write CC: Trading Standards, xxxxx, xxxxxx, xxxxxx, xxxxxx, xxxxxx

xxxxx, xxxxx, xxxx, xxxxx, xxxx = address of your local trading standards. Also call consumer direct, get a reference number

from them, put that on the letter:- Ref: xxxxxxxxx.

 

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/making-complaint/template-letters/SGA1979/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rebel,

 

Will take your advice and move the car ASAP. When Graylands (this is the dealership we purchased from) inspected the vehicle they removed a plate from under the engine should I ask that they put this back on prior to moving it.

 

thanks

 

Eli

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ellis01

 

I would, you don't want them to say it's missing or give them any reasons for not refunding the money. After you get your money back which is the priorty, you can write a letter to any bodies they belong to and send them a copy too.

 

Thanks Rebel,

 

Will take your advice and move the car ASAP. When Graylands (this is the dealership we purchased from) inspected the vehicle they removed a plate from under the engine should I ask that they put this back on prior to moving it.

 

thanks

 

Eli

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are saying you drove it without oil. If you checked the oil before leaving and it was correct then it is either leaking or burning oil to a degree that it used all the oil in the distance you travelled. The problem being its your word against theirs. Did anybody check the oil when you broke down the recovery company or somebody else?

Has it got oil in it now?

It would not be hard for an engineer to see if it was a dry seize. This would be caused by no oil as they are saying or pump failure which would stop the oil circulating.

Leaving the car there could mean they have the opportunity to tamper with it.

Personally I would recover the vehicle and have it inspected, are you with the AA or RAC?

I would do as Rebel11 suggests and do it without the emotion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi esmerobbo ,

 

Yes the Oil coolant/water and tyres were checked before setting off. I have done a bit of checking and looked on line at the MOT done in June 2010 there was an advisory, the things on the advisory were front and rear pads worn thin rear disc's slightly pitted engine has an oil leak. Should they have attended to these issues and serviced the vehicle before I took delivery? Not one of their 'carefully chosen professionally prepared ones' as per the web site. The car was taken back to Graylands and they have already had it in the workshop, they say it has oil in it now because they put some in! they also say it's not leaking oil. I will give the RAC a call.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to thank you both for helping me feel more rational. It's nice to know I'm not alone in this. Sorry missed saying the recovery people did not look at the car because it was pitch dark and we would not be asking them to repair it. The person who attended from the highways agency did check underneath the car on the hard shoulder and managed to get her hand covered in oil, I am trying to get hold of the person who attended to get a written statement that should reinstate the car was obviously leaking oil, the garage was aware of this fact prior to selling me the vehicle and therfore the fault was present at the time of purchase and has not developed since.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi elliso1,

 

Get as much evidence together as possible, hopefully the vendor will see sense and know you mean business, sooner rather then later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An advisory on an MOT is simply that it is advising of faults which may later cause a problem or a failure at the next MOT. What mileage did the MOT have, and what was the mileage when you picked it up?

 

If it states on the MOT oil leak then that is proof that the dealer knew about it or should have.

 

Did they have the MOT done?

 

I would like to hear their reasoning to putting oil in an engine they claim was run dry?

 

I think if you do as Rebel11 says gather as much evidence as you can including the overall mileage you have covered. Hopefully you can gather enough to make him reconsider his approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi esmerobbo,

 

The mileage on the MOT is 103,523 the mileage on the purchase invoice is 103,545 the mileage now is 107,633. I don;t know if they had the MOT done or not but they did and still do have the advisory.

 

Eli

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Car now back with me. A friend has given me the following advise and I just wondered if anyone could confirm it's correct. If I reject the vehicle as not fit for purpose then I have to prove the fault was there prior to purchase, if I request a repair or replacement they have to prove the fault was not there prior to purchase.

 

 

thanks

 

 

 

Eli

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Esmerobbo,

 

Very good question, all I have to go on at the moment is Graylands have said in that what ever is wrong with it is due to lack of engine oil. What I am asking is no matter what the fault is does it depend on which action I take as to who has to prove the vehicle was sold with an existing fault.

 

 

Eli

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's going to be the sticking point even if you had a cast iron warranty if they claim the damage was caused by your negligence by not putting oil in the vehicle then they could avoid putting it right. That is why I asked previously if anyone had looked at the car before the dealers who could verify it had oil in it.

 

You know you checked the oil before you set off and it was fine? You have covered a little over 4000 miles since you had it so I assume you would have noticed a large oil leak or excessive oil consumption? So the question is from setting off on your journey and the time Graylands lifted the bonnet where did the oil go.

 

What warranty did Graylands actually give you?

 

Without being able to confirm that the vehicle was sold with whatever caused the engine to fail I can see is going to be your problem with any claim. Also seeing you have covered 4000 odd miles I presume the engine did not have any problems up to this incident?

 

It looks like the dealers are going to say it was perfectly good until you let the oil run out! Without having the engine removed stripped and a report made on it by an independent engineer then it will be difficult to prove otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a car like this use the whole of it's engine oil capacity within just over 4,000 miles? No I did not notice any excesive oil consumption or any leakage. The journey was 300 mile round trip is it possible that the existing oil leak could have been getting worse throughtout the journey. The only person who can verify that there must have been some Oil in at the point of breakdown is the highways agency but they won't be able to confirm how much because the level was not checked. The warranty we were given is Graylands own warranty which was for 3 months. Your last paragraph begs my question who will have produce an engineers report as I have been quoted over £300 for this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all.

 

Car had an oil leak at MoT as pointed out on advisory. What did the selling garage do to rectify the leak? Nothing I suspect.

 

The onus is on the dealer to prove the fault was NOT there when sold. A bit difficult in this case when the MoT proves it was there!

 

A clear case of 'not fit for purpose' and a full refund is indeed in order. If you paid by credit fard (hopefully) then the card company is jointly liable and you can demand a chargeback.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No even a badly worn engine would not use that amount of oil without you knowing. Anyway you checked it before you left and it was OK. It may well have been OK when it got back to Graylands!

 

As we know and DD says the leak was there at its MOT so that is one factor in your favour. If it was that leak that caused the engine failure then it was sold with the fault. You would then be entitled to your money back!

 

It is not so easy as DD suggests say on inspection it was found a piece of road debris came from the road punctured the sump and you lost your oil would Graylands be responsible?

 

Thats why you need to pinpoint where the oil went if it was a small leak when it was MOTed which became larger then game set and match to you, as it was sold with the fault.

 

Remember this whole no oil business could be a red herring to try and get out of a claim. Without getting to involved with reports at this point have you got a friend or relative who could maybe take a look and see if it is obvious where any oil was leaking.

 

In the meantime what vehicle is it and what engine has it got. I will look at my Autodata and see what the acceptable oil consumption is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's A Mitsubishi Pajero 2.8 Auto Exceede. I paid by Visa Debit, I have spoken to the dealer dispute department I have to write in and include a copy of the rejection letter sent to Graylands, they will review and get back to me if they think they can persue the matter!

I recieved a registered letter from Graylnds today acknowledgeing reciept of my letter and they will get back to me in 14 days as requested also that they take no responsibilty for my vehicle being parked on the road outside the showroom. As you know I had it recovered by the AA late last night funny thing is the sump gaurd has been put back on, they left the sheet of cardboard they were using and it's covered in Oil drips.

 

thanks guys

 

 

Eli

Link to post
Share on other sites

2.8 turbo diesel depending on engine number holds 6.5 or 7.8 litres. Mitsubishi have no bulletins regarding oil consumption. 300Ml per 1000 miles is considered to be top end acceptable. so on them figures the 6.5 litre sump would do over 21500mls and the 7.8 sump 26000 miles before running dry.

Seeing you have done 4000mls top end the engine should have used 1.2ltrs of oil max.

 

Good news on the Visa card gives you more leverage.

Edited by esmerobbo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...