Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Honestly you are all amazing on this site, thank you so much for your help and time. ill keep an eye out and only return when i receive a claim letter for sure also, i updated my address with amex and tsb before i even missed payments. the initial address was my family home but i dont reside there. to avoid a bombardment of letters there i have now updated my address, will they send all threats etc to the new address? Or old address?   do you reccomend i send both tsb and amex my update in address via a letter?
    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Charge for investigation of problem


Fairdeals
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4651 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

When I recently left my car in for servicing I told the dealership to fix my drivers door which was not closing properly. I was told by telephone later on the day that there would be a two hour labour charge for work on the door as they would have to strip the door to discover the problem. The labour rate is 100 per hour plus vat. They later told me that they needed to order a part (a door seal) which would take another hour and a half labour to fit. Total 3.5 hours.

 

The door seal that needs replacing is clearly visible without having to strip the door and one wonders why I was charged the two hours for investigation. I brought it to their attention and they were adamant that they spent two hours investigating. If I had of known that it would be 3.5 hours total I would have gone elsewhere.

 

Is this par for the course or am I being ripped off?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairdeals,

 

You do need to identify the make and model of vehicle and the symptoms of the fault as described to the dealer so that a judgement on the time spent can be made. Your rough location and whether or not it is a franchise dealership would help with relation to the hourly rate.

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

The dealer is a mercedes main dealer. The car is a 1996 E Class coupe (w124) and door seal around door mirror was determined to be at fault.

 

When I left in the car I told the garage that the driver's door was not closing properly.

Edited by Fairdeals
Link to post
Share on other sites

main dealer prices, such a rip off!! local garage £25/hour. your choice.

Having said that, if they have done something you did not ask for or not corrected the fault you asked them to then dont pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no mention of charging for an estimate or investigation when I dropped car off for it''s service. They phoned me later to say that they would need two hours labour for the door. I understood this to mean that they needed two hours labour to repair. Then later they said they needed to order a door seal and this will take another 1.5 hours to put on. They are currently waiting on the door seal. I have used main dealers before but have never had a trick like this pulled on me. The two hours investigation has cost me €250 euro (labour plus vat).

Edited by Fairdeals
Link to post
Share on other sites

Euro, where are you, not in UK then!

Anyway, you have to ask them to justify it and explian what you thought you were paying for!

Up to you now, if you think its unfair then dont pay them or negotiate a reduction.

Nothing is set in stone these days and everything is up for a bit of bartering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Fairdeals,

 

I notice that you have not responded to raydetinu's post asking you for your location. Whilst it matters not that you are outside of the UK for this post, it would shed light on the relative value of the hourly rate. The UK for mercedes workshops would be £80 - £110 depending on location equivalent to 95-120€. The Republic of Ireland would be 80-100€, other areas could be in excess of 120€., ex vat.

 

As far as the time to diagnose the problem is concerned, I can understand your bemusement, however it should be appreciated that stating that the door was not closing properly when putting the car in for service, can easily be taken as an instruction to identify and rectify the problem. The door seal, even if showing visible signs would need to be removed to see if the door then closed satisfactorily without it in situ, thus confirming the fault. After all, if one had been ordered and fitted but the fault remained, you would not have been happy!

 

The seal on the vehicle, unlike 'bread and butter' cars, is not fitted in tracks on the edge of the door, or by plastic clips that can easily be popped out. The door panel must first be removed, together with all the switches and controls. I have personally stripped a W124 (admittedly not the coupe) and can vouch for a time of in excess of 1 hour to strip and reassemble. Had the required seal been in stock, diagnosis and repair within 2 hours (bearing in mind looking at other, simpler, possibilities first and time requesting the part etc) would to my mind have been reasonable. As the seal needed ordering, to be expected for a 15 year old vehicle of a model that was not the most numerous built and might take in excess of a week, reassemble would seem the prudent course so that the vehicle could, in the meantime, be available for use.

 

You have not said if you have been a customer at this dealership previously, but Mercedes owners usually expect and receive a high level of service, for which they are happy to pay, so the service reception might not have thought it necessary to explain the details of what would be involved in finding the fault and rectifying if possible. If you have had the vehicle serviced there in the past, you might be able to negotiate a rebate of some or even all of the labour cost for the fitting of the seal when it comes into stock. Ask to speak to the service manager and explain that you were not told that the 2 hours that you were quoted 'for the door' would apply even though the job could not be completed.

 

As you are not within the UK, any consumer rights will probably be different, although one would expect a similar protection from any European Community member.

 

raydetinu,

 

I certainly would not like my C270 to be worked on by an independat workshop only charging £25 p hour, as I know of none employing time-served mechanics let alone Mercedes trained, working for such a low hourly rate, not even 'mates rates'. A local independant workshop specializing in Mercedes, charges £65.

Edited by Gick
word missing

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a door seal!; not stripping the engine and rebuilding it. local body shop may also do a good job!

Its horses for courses; would not dream of any local garage touching my electrics or engine; thats specialist stuff. oil change maybe! ( do it myself even cheaper )

Link to post
Share on other sites

MB doors are notoriously difficult to take apart. 2 hours to investigate a "difficult to close problem" is very excessive.

 

A visual check of the latch would reveal if there is any wear

A visual check of the striker would be a good check for wear and indicative of door misalignment.

Then a check of the seals, again visual. It is very obvious when a seal is misbehaving as there are usually wear marks here there should not be.

Dismantling should not be needed for any of there as all are visible with the door open.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that a good bodyshop would be able to deal with this problem possibly quicker and most likely cheaper, but the fact is that the vehicle was put in for a service at a main dealership with the additional complaint of the door closure problem.

 

Traffer,

I agree that in the majority of cases, misalignment in particular, result in signs of wear to be observed. 'It is very obvious when a seal is misbehaving as there are usually wear marks here there should not be.' IF there are no wear marks where there should not be, what do you then do? After all it is 15 years old, so distinguishing new marks from age related ones becomes more difficult. What further investigation would you enter into, at what cost?

 

It is easy to be critical of other workmanship when you are not in the firing line. One failing of the forum is that we only have the OP's side of things. This thread should be read in association with the OP's other thread posted 20 minutes later.

Not told about Servicing Special Offer

 

The OP has not yet responded with the means for us to look at the terms and conditions of that website special offer, so it is difficult to formulate an opinion as to the fairness of the dealership.

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gick,

To answer your question, if there was no problem with striker adjustment, latch wear or seals on the drivers door, I would compare with the passengers door which appears to be OK. Slowly closing each door in turn to gauge the difference in closing effort. Also, I forgot to mention hinge wear - check by lifting the door and possibly a tight check arm. If the vehicle has a frameless door there is also the possibility of the glass being out of alignment due to a guide/window reg problem. Again comparison with passenger side will highlight this. Still not clocked up 2 hours though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Traffer,

the steps that you describe are what most experienced mechanics/bodyworkers would naturally undertake. However, you must have superb iconic memory if you can look at one door, walk to the other, mirror image what you first saw and detect the subtle difference that could be the cause of the problem. You would also have to mentally analyse what was long term wear (typically the driver's door is opened and closed 10 times more often than the passenger side) and if there was sufficient difference to cause the problem to appear at this time.

 

The OP has not responded to other questions, so is unlikely to tell us how long they have owned the vehicle and for how long there has been the difficulty. So if there were some signs on the seals, you would automatically order a new one at about £70? Without knowing that this would solve the problem?

 

You were not there, I was not there, so we do not know exactly what was required to determine unacquivocally the cause of the complaint. I still maintain that it was good practice to remove the door panel (which you have previously admitted are notoriously difficult to take apart) to test the closing without the seal. You cannot remove the seal (other than tearing it off) without removing the panel. They would then have been in the position to reinstate the seal if the cause was elsewhere.

 

You mention, 'If the vehicle has a frameless door there is also the possibility of the glass being out of alignment due to a guide/window reg problem'. Were you talking hypothetically, or because you are unfamiliar with this model without googling it?I am not making excuses for the Mercedes dealer, merely pointing out that (a) we do not have all the facts and (b) what might appear simple on some vehicles can be more complicated on others so relevant experience is important.

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gick,

Not sure of the point you are tying to make here. But to respect the concerns of the OP, do you consider that 2 hours to investigate a door closing issue to be excessive? I certainly do, and that is based on more than 25 years on working with the design and development of products related to doors and how they can affect ease of opening/closing, noise, rattles, etc etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Traffer,

the simple answer is no, I do not know if 2 hours was excessive, as I was not there to observe. Neither were you. In my original response to the OP's thread, I was simply pointing out the possible reasons for this length of time from my experience with the model range. You may not have read my suggestion that they speak to the Service Manager. 'Ask to speak to the service manager and explain that you were not told that the 2 hours that you were quoted 'for the door' would apply even though the job could not be completed.' etc

 

With the greatest of respect, your comment about the 2 hours being excesive, 'I certainly do, and that is based on more than 25 years on working with the design and development of products related to doors and how they can affect ease of opening/closing, noise, rattles, etc etc etc.' really does not answer my question as to whether you are familiar with the model (as am I) or of working on any Mercedes (as do I ), or to be able to bring anything other than academic thoughts to the situation.

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Gick, we have a difference in opinion as to wether 2 hours is excessive. Not a problem. Based on our differing knowledge and experience of doors in general and the model of vehicle in particular that is understandable.

 

As a forum that is trying to help people by sharing knowledge and experience, it can be most off putting to people who are considering posting when people start having spats on here. I am not going to further dignify your opinions about my knowledge of door systems with further comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...