Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later the your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. So if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place and park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and then unload the children followed by reloading the children getting seat belts on etc before driving to the exit stopping for cars, pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
    • Hi  no nothing yet. Hope it stays that way 😬
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Faulty car bought from local dealer.


azza87
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4602 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

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Agreed.

Update CD and see what they say.

Are the traders aware that you have spoken to CD ?

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I sent the first letter (soga) I sent it via special delivery as advised in here and even now using the tracking code on the royal mail website it says the letter is out for delivery and the second letter (lba) it just states where I posted it. I'm thinking either the postman on the dealers round is just posting the letters without actually getting a signature or the royal mail website isn't being updated with delivery info.

 

AFAIK the dealer isn't aware I've been speaking to CD which is why he tried to fob me off in his response to me soga letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update, I've called royal mail this morning and they have confirmed both letters (we already know the first one was received as I got a response) were signed for by the recipient.

 

It was delivered at around 10am on 17/05/2011 and I requested proof of this to be emailed to me and I've now received this.

 

I've also phoned CD again this morning and informed them I've received no response to me lba to the dealer. They have now passed my case on to trading standards who will contact me within the next 5 working days.

Edited by azza87
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear.

So as suspected the Postie had not entered it onto the system.

Not much you can do for the moment then.

CD or TS will not impede or affect your rights to take your own action.

It may even transpire that TS will advise that you take it to Court-this is something we have seen before,much depends on the workload of your TS and unfortunately these days,also their budget.

 

In any event,you have completed pre action protocols insofar as can reasonably be expected.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to report so far. Still not had any contact from the dealer. I couldn't phone CD/TS Until today due to work, they basically said TS usually take 5 working days to respond once cases have been passed on to them.

 

It was referred to them on 31st may so tomorrow will be the 5th day, the lady I spoke to today said if I don't hear back from them either today or tomorrow to give them another call.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just a quick update, I had a phone call from TS this morning. They are going to send out one of their officers (?) out to the dealer to try and come to a reasonable resolution. The lady I spoke to asked me what I wanted to do about all of this, ie the dealer cover the cost of repairs, or the dealer carry out the repairs etc.

 

I told her I would be willing to accept them either covering the costs for the repairs or them actually carrying out the repairs but I with how long this has been dragged out and the fact the dealer is now completely ignoring my correspondance etc, I would prefer to reject the car, get my money back and buy another car elsewhere. She said once one of her officers has been to see the dealer she will give me a ring back.

 

As far as I'm concerned the dealer has had the chance to offer one of the three solutions on the soga letter and he point blank refused to accept liability, which should leave the ball in my court I think. didn't say this to TS, am I right in thinking this? If so, when she rings me back I will just tell her I would like to formally reject the car, what needs to happen next for this to happen etc.

 

Thanks all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Still nothing new to report. I've not heard anything back from TS so not sure whether one of their officers has actually been to see the dealer yet or not. The lady I spoke to/who is dealing with this has been out of the office the last 3 days I've tried calling her to try and chase this and today I sent her an email instead so hopefully once she gets back she'll see it and give me a call, I've asked her if rejecting the car at this stage would be possible and if so how I would go about rejecting it.

 

The MOT is due this friday and I'm worried it is going to fail, the faults were on an advisory 12 months ago and I've convinced myself they'll be worse after all this time. I guess all I can do is wait for TS to get back to me but it's so frustrating not knowing what is happening plus the worry of knowing the MOT is due in just 4 days.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well seems I had reason to worry about it's MOT. Just got back from having it tested and it failed dramatically.

 

Reasons for refusal of a Test Certificate:

 

Offside (may be bulb thats deteriorated) headlamp excessively deteriorated so that the light output is severely reduced [1.7.4a]

Brake servo leaking [3.6.C.1f] **DANGEROUS**

 

Nearside front lower ball joint has excessive play [2.2.B.1f]

 

Exhaust emissions lambda reading after 2nd fast idle outside specified limits [7.3.D.2b]

 

Exhaust emissions carbon monoxide content after 2nd fast idle excessive [7.3.D.2b]

 

(aborted, engine started to overheat) Emissions not tested [7.0]

 

The guy told me the leaking servo was an instant fail and when I told him it was an advisory on the last MOT he said it shouldn't have been an advisory, it is dangerous to drive in it's current condition.

 

Advisory Notice:

Measurements

Brakes advisories: RBT Service Brake Efficiency: 50%, RBT Park Brake Efficiency: 17%

 

Advisory items:

 

Rear Registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread [6.3.1d]

 

Nearside front brake hose slightly deteriorated [3.6.B.2c]

 

Offside front brake pipe slightly corroded [3.6.B.2c]

 

Nearside front brake pad(s) wearing thin [3.5.1f]

 

Offside front brake pad(s) wearing thin [3.5.1f]

 

Nearside front lower suspension arm rubber bush deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement [2.4.G.3]

 

Offside front lower suspension arm rubber bush deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement [2.4.G.3]

 

Service brake Your vehicle has only just met the required service brake efficiency. It would appear the braking system requires adjustment or repair. [3.7.A.9]

 

Parking brake Your vehicle has only just met the required park brake efficiency. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. [3.7.A.10]

 

Front brake discs corroded

 

N/s/f inner driveshaft boot leaking

 

They have quoted me roughly £400 for repairs including labor but are unable to get hold of a replacement brake servo so I would have to supply this myself, labor costs to fit the brake servo would be roughly £70 as it is 1.4 hours work. I was absolutely speechless when he gave me the results of the test. It wasn't at kwik-fit or halfords either, it was at Lakeside Service Centre who are members of the good garage scheme.

 

So far I've been unable to get back in touch with the lady at TS who is dealing with this, each time I phone it goes to her message machine saying she is out of the office. I've had no response to the email I sent her a few days ago. What would you recommend I do now, obviously with the failed MOT I can't drive the car so I'm stuck without a car until this whole mess is sorted.

 

Cheers

Aaron

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just spoken to TS, she replied to my email on the 4th (I didn't get it!) and has just resent it (again nothing has come through!). An officer was sent out to the dealers address but there was nobody there. They left a card asking them to get in touch with TS and he phoned and left an abrupt message stating he wasn't happy about TS going out to his address.

 

Since the message TS have sent out a letter asking for the dealer to ring them to make an appointment to go in to see them seeing as he is unhappy with them going to his address but they have so far heard nothing back from him. She did say he will have only had the letter for a matter of days and he does have 14 days to get back to them before they chase it up.

 

So at the minute I'm now without a car as it's unroadworthy and without an MOT and I don't seem to have gotten very far as yet with TS. What a major headache this has turned out to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm, I'm not happy about the casual way TS are treating this. the seller had 14 days to trespond to your complaint back in may and didn't. I see no reason for dragging this out any longer to be honest. Send a copy of the fail doc to the 'lady' at TS and politely ask what action they intend to take. Remind her that the seller has been totally dismissive so far and now you cannot even use the car. So now you are not only out of pocket with an unroadworthy vehicle but are being inconvienienced as well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I told her over the phone today that the reason I was calling to chase things up was due to having the MOT today and it failing going into detail about what the fails were, one being the original fault in this dispute and all she said in response was the MOT was irrelevant until they hear back from the dealer as no matter how much information I give them they can't go any further without them talking to the dealer.

 

I did ask what would happen if the seller ignored them like he has ignored me and she just said if that was going to be the case it would go to court and could take between 6 and 9 months to resolve. I just can't see this ever going anywhere and I'm at the end of my tether now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just gone through the thread again and noted that you actually bought this to the attention of TS on 5th May being just over 2 months ago. Personally I would be thinking of making a complaint against them by now. To me the facts are simple; you bought a car which had a known defect (a fact you have proof from the advisory given last July). The dealer did not make you aware of this and even possibly removed the advisory notice from the documentation. You have given the dealer the opportunity to rectify and he has point blaink refused to do so which is a clear breach of the SOGA. You reported the matter to TS 5th May who appear to be dragging their feet by writing to the seller and waiting for a reply which we all know isn't going to come. We are now on the 8th July with no progress. By now the matter should be in court as far as i'm concerned.

 

Unfortunately there is little you can do but wait if you want TS to take the dealer on. At least you won't have to find the court costs yourself. In the meantime, you could ask them about hiring a car and recovering the costs from the dealer. i know that will be a risk but IMHO, you have a strong case here so consiquential losses can be added to a claim. If I were you I would send the seller a brief letter saying that due to his refusal to honour his obligations to you under the SOGA, you have now asked TS to investigate. Enclose a copy of the MOT fail doc and add that you now anticipate legal action being taken and as such you are considering hiring a car as your car (which they sold you just 3 months ago) is now an MOT failure. The hire cost will be added to the claim as a 'consiquential loss' unless the matter is resolved within the next 7 days. I would suggest that before you do this to run it by TS first.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaron, You claimed the vehicle was dangerously non roadworthy mid April. You contacted the dealer who rightly or wrongly said that advisories found in an MOT done 9 months previous by a different garage were not covered by him. You continued to claim the car was dangerous and contacted trading standards.

 

 

My question is, If it was so dangerous why did you continue driving it? You prove that by saying you are now left without a car as it has failed its MOT. To my mind that throws your statement that the car was dangerous and not fit for purpose out the window.

 

 

Frankly £400 to get an old banger through its test isn't excessive.

 

 

I recall reading another thread here where 2 other people have been fighting for 2 years with their cars off the road. This was on cars at over £10,000. You cannot really expect trading standards to be putting your case to the top of the pile.

 

 

Much as some of the posters on here might believe and post, The courts aren't as favorable as you might think where cheap old cars are concerned. The law is incredibly complex and open to interpretation with the description of fitness for purpose.

 

 

The trader probably knows how limited trading standards powers are. He also will know that the only option left to you is to pursue a claim through small claims which he will likely win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaron, You claimed the vehicle was dangerously non roadworthy mid April. You contacted the dealer who rightly or wrongly said that advisories found in an MOT done 9 months previous by a different garage were not covered by him. You continued to claim the car was dangerous and contacted trading standards.

 

 

My question is, If it was so dangerous why did you continue driving it? You prove that by saying you are now left without a car as it has failed its MOT. To my mind that throws your statement that the car was dangerous and not fit for purpose out the window.

 

 

Frankly £400 to get an old banger through its test isn't excessive.

 

 

I recall reading another thread here where 2 other people have been fighting for 2 years with their cars off the road. This was on cars at over £10,000. You cannot really expect trading standards to be putting your case to the top of the pile.

 

 

Much as some of the posters on here might believe and post, The courts aren't as favorable as you might think where cheap old cars are concerned. The law is incredibly complex and open to interpretation with the description of fitness for purpose.

 

 

The trader probably knows how limited trading standards powers are. He also will know that the only option left to you is to pursue a claim through small claims which he will likely win.

 

Jeepster mk4 by any chance?

 

£400 for repairs after a test isn't that much to some people but it is alot of money to me on my wage and seeing as car was faulty when I bought it I don't see why I should have to foot the bill for such repairs.

 

I have done less than 1000 miles in the car since I bought it 4 months ago, are you really saying that all of those faults and advisories on todays failed MOT are from my usage of the car? All these failures just point out just how bad a condition the car is, I know you can't expect an old used car to be in perfect/new condition and I wasn't, but there is no way I am going to accept that a car with this amount of problems is acceptable 11 years old or only costing £999 or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeepster mk4 by any chance?

 

My thinking exactly! Clearly another trader!

 

Fact of the matter is you have documented PROOF in the advisory notice that the car had a known defect when you bought it AND the dealer (in my opinion) deliberately witheld that info from you and disguised the defect by giving you some load of bull about the hissing noise durung the test drive. Your case is pretty solid I would say and so does TS (apparently).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Aaron, the faults picked up in the test are all wear and tear on a car of this age and price. If you wanted a car that had no wear and tear then you have to buy new. Common sense and the courts will tell you that. Sorry to be harsh but you do have to weigh up can you afford a car if you cant afford to maintain it.

 

Sailor Sam if you actually were aware of the law here you would not be posting what you do. Trading standards will not bring a case to return Aarons money. They may after speaking to the trader bring a prosecution for illegal business practices. The OP would still be then left to pursue a case for his losses. They dont have the powers to make the seller return the money.

 

If you look at the thread where Parks of Ayr are being discussed. Trading standards are not pursuing the personal loss claim. In those cases it is for £10,000 cars that don't even go. The people concerned are having to bring cases themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Aaron, the faults picked up in the test are all wear and tear on a car of this age and price. If you wanted a car that had no wear and tear then you have to buy new. Common sense and the courts will tell you that. Sorry to be harsh but you do have to weigh up can you afford a car if you cant afford to maintain it.

 

Sailor Sam if you actually were aware of the law here you would not be posting what you do. Trading standards will not bring a case to return Aarons money. They may after speaking to the trader bring a prosecution for illegal business practices. The OP would still be then left to pursue a case for his losses. They dont have the powers to make the seller return the money.

 

If you look at the thread where Parks of Ayr are being discussed. Trading standards are not pursuing the personal loss claim. In those cases it is for £10,000 cars that don't even go. The people concerned are having to bring cases themselves.

 

Oh god, here we go again!

 

Yes I am aware of the law thanks and have been involved in a number of cases like these. You are clearly suggesting then that TS are lieing to the OP as they have told him that 'it will go to court' if the dealer ignores them. For your info, TS or anyone else for that matter can bring an action against the dealer on behalf of the OP if they so wish. There is absolutely no rules against anyone doing so.

 

If you have read the whole thread (and i've no doubt that you have... more than once and not ionly today!), you will see that the OP has an advisory notice which was issued prior to him buying the car with a brake cylinder leak which still exists now and has been subsiquently resulted in a fail now. I believe (and so does TS it appears) that there is sufficient proof to show that the dealer miss-sold the car in the first place by not disclosing that fact. You will also see that a previous suspected 'trader' tried to take over the thread by giving similar contrdictory advice to other reliable and experienced Caggers.

 

So please go away and pester someone else unless the OP wants more of your 'advice'.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...