Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

KwikFit dropped my Car off their ramp - help me nail them please


Muttzz
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4706 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 took my car to kwik Fit for it's annual MOT & service and they dropped it off their ramp causing extensive damage.

 

First of all they told me the damage was "superficial" and the car safe to drive.

 

They next informed me that the car was not worth repairing as the damage costs were greater than their valuation of it at £1,300.

The car is an 04 plate Suzuki Ignis Sport (rare model) and as such would cost me approx £4,000 to replace like for like.

 

Having now revalued the car at £2000 (scrap value) they have offered to repair the car (which I am not prepared to accept given the risk of damage to the suspension / chassis etc) or give me £2000 plus £1,000 as compensation for the 'inconvenience'. Said inconvenience includes failing to provide me with a courtesy care for the first 4 days.

 

I feel that they should pay me the cost of replacing the car i.e. pay me a minimum of £4,000. Do I have a legal right to insist on this?

To say that Kwik Fit have been less than apologetic / customer oriented is an understatement!:mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They or their insurers should put you back in the position you were before the incident and compensate you for any inconveience and costs, hire car, incienddental expenses, time etc.

You can have the car repaired at place of your choosing ( trust ) or a replcement.

Suggest you shop around for a similar car of that age, mileage etc. so you have a base on which to argue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The insurance company either yours or Kwik Fit insurers, should put you back into the position you were before before the incident. This means on a car this age you should be recompensed as to it's value. Insurance companies deal in money not cars. So the value of the car is not what it costs to replace but the value of the car as a trade sale, i.e. what you would get to trade in. And that is all the liability they have in reality. But then you can add inconvenience or loss of use etc but you might be dissapointed. These things are termed if you did not know already as consequential loss, usually an add on in insurance policys.

 

Personally I'd take the £3K on offer and run as that seems to me as an exceptional offer on a 2004 car, especially what it is. Fighting it will delay the payment on a good offer and give a lot of grief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take issue with that Helio, the injured party as it is of no fault of theirs should not loose out at all, and as you said yourself should be recompensed so they are in a the same position before the incident.

i.e a car fiited with a super duper body kit, damaged beyond repair,the owner would expect to be suitably compensated including the mods, not just the resale value.

Ok different if it was his own insurers, probably have fight on then, unless he had agreed a minimum value in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take issue with that Helio, the injured party as it is of no fault of theirs should not loose out at all, and as you said yourself should be recompensed so they are in a the same position before the incident.

i.e a car fiited with a super duper body kit, damaged beyond repair,the owner would expect to be suitably compensated including the mods, not just the resale value.

Ok different if it was his own insurers, probably have fight on then, unless he had agreed a minimum value in advance.

 

While I fully agree with you, if the OP hadn't declared the body kit ect to his insurers, I doubt whether they will persue a claim for said items. I fear that the OP will have to seriously negotiate with the garage unless he wants to perue the matter in court. I think that the compensation should be calculated by the cars's value (as per Glass's guide) and then add the value of the body kit on top. However, if the garage are confident of repairing the car to it's pre-incident condition on the basis that it is subject to an indipendant inspection, I think that would be a reasonable offer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly my point. The insurance, be it yours or Kwikfit will base the payout on the trade value of your car, not what it would cost you to buy the equivalent car etc unless of course you have an agreed value.

So for example, my little starship has in excess of 200,000 miles and the book price is probably zero yet it has £1K worth of LPG conversion on it. Makes no odds unless I have an agreed value. The condition and history of the car is exceptional and to get an equivalent in same condition ( disregarding mileage) I'd have to fork out £4 grand. So I'd be offered a notional amount and then argue the toss for subsequential loss, i.e. LPG conversion and exceptional condition, probably having to go to court.

 

Cars rareity values only kick in for classics which with respect, the Suzuki does not. If indeed it is that rare and classic then you should have an agreed value ( like my motorbike) but in this case I don't think the insurance will agree to even do it.

 

The amount offered seems rather fair to me which is why I say take it whilst it's on the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree again, that may apply if claiming of your own insurance but not a third parties, they must put you back where you were before the incident, thats what TP cover is all about, if at all possible or at least the a monetary equivalent. Why should you loose out at all , not your fault. If TP insurers wont play ball just Kwik fit to court.

Why should OP claim on his insurance and put NCB at risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

im not sure what the arguement here, the owner should inform his insurance who will then contact kik fits insurance and an offer will be made based on it market value as long as the mods were also insured unless he is successfull at claiming uninsured losses ( maybe hard with that one though if the mods were not insured as this means they shouldnt have been there) you really cant go telling kwick fit that you want this much or that much because you will achaive nothing, just inform your own insurance

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...