Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Okay so it carries on, Lloyds supplied what they said was the DSAR again missing many items, so this has now been reported to the ICO, who have a six month backlog. Lloyds then said we will not correspond any further you will have to take us to court. LBG know they are in breach of contract but hope we can not raise the £10k + upfront to pay for the N1 and solicitors. LBG solicitors Eversheds then replied to the below letter (names take out) saying they will discuss once I have solicitors write to them. The below shows the lies, breach of contract and fraud by LBG and it's senior team. Charlie Nunn will have his work cut out with this lot or is he the same?   Directors of Lloyds Banking Group CO Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP 115 Colmore Row Birmingham B3 3AL   10TH December 2020   This is an open letter   Dear All Parties   With reference to the letter dated 26th November 2020 received by e-mail from Eversheds Sutherland concerning mortgage account number xxxxxxxxxxxxx with Lloyds banking group (LBG). Although in letters dated 7th November 2020, 13th November 2020, Eversheds Sutherland clearly stated a full review of the banks records would be carried out before a full response can be sent it is very disturbing that the response dated 26 November 2020 does not contain 95% of items that LBG have records for.   For the purposes of background mortgage account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxx was taken out as a buy to let mortgage on property xxxxxxxxx, had a none agreed product change made to it in 2007 and also had an address change made to it by accident during a system migration. The latter creating a data breach with letters and statements relating to the said mortgage being sent to the buy to let property and being opened by tenants (this data breach was not reported to the ICO). The content of this letter will also show further unreported data breaches on third party credit card accounts that have not been reported. Issues with the mortgage account that were first discovered in November 2017, however the severity of the issues did not become apparent right away. With the letter also outlining Fraudulent activity along with the withholding of information carried out by LBG between 2017 and 2020.      For avoidance of doubt the following letter outlines that mortgage account number xxxxxxxxxx is voidable on the following grounds, Terms breached, mistakes made by party offering the contract, misrepresentation, and fraudulent (omitting / falsifying facts or information). LBG have also acted fraudulently to cover up mistakes made, whilst also not disclosing / purposely withholding and altering information which should have been included in DSAR requests. The below examples also highlight offences by LBG under the fraud act 2006, Can we please remind you this is a criminal offence and that the company officers will be liable to be charged with the offence as well as the company.         Credit checks: As part of the many DSAR requests xxxxxxx has asked for the two credit checks 2005 for the original application and 2007 for the change of product and all information relating to the credit checks to be included in the DSARs. LBG have purposely withheld this information as it shows many mistakes made in the correspondence xxxxxxxx has had with LBG since November 2017. Firstly, LBG state in many letters, e-mails (example e-mail to xxxxxxxx from Ben Taylor dated 29 March 2018) and conversations shown below that they have never held any other address than xxxxxxxxx for xxxxxx and xxxxxxxx however xxxxxxxx has never lived at xxxxxxxxx with the original mortgage agreement also listing xxxxxxxxx as living at a different address. Ben Taylor also quoted in an e-mail dated 4 April 2018 that xxxxxx was the associated address for xxxxxxxx. This means that either the credit check was incorrectly carried out and incomplete or LBG have made mistakes and acted fraudulently in stating no other address has ever been held. Due to the above mortgage account number xxxxxxxxxx is voidable on the following grounds, mistakes made by party offering the contract, misrepresentation, and fraudulent (omitting / falsifying facts or information)   For the 2007 credit check carried out on xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxx, as stated by a number of LBG representatives, it is now apparent no credit check was carried out, 10th April 2018 Wendy Zeal wrote to xxxxxxxx in this letter Wendy quotes “Under our product transfer process in 2007 it was not a requirement for you to sign any documents in relation to the product transfer. Neither was it a requirement of the Bank to carry out a credit search on either of you” this means the many quotes stating credit checks had been carried one of which was by Wendy Zeal are fraud by false representation and was carried out with dishonest intent to cause a loss to xxxxxxxx.  Can we please remind you this is a criminal offence and that the company officers will be liable to be charged with the offence as well as the company.     None agreed product change: In 2007 the product was changed from 4.79% to a fixed two-year rate @ 6.23% plus a £699 fee, this was a mistake made by LBG who then continuously acted fraudulently to cover up this mistake.   The next section is made up of quotes taken from telephone calls between ******* and representatives of LBG and highlights many examples of mistakes made by party offering the contract, misrepresentation, and fraudulent (omitting / falsifying facts or information).   23 March 2018 LBG Sean Beveridge from executive complaints. In this call Sean Beveridge told xxxxxx when talking about the 13 November 2017 calls “not all calls are recorded, also no supporting notes are on the file to confirm the calls took place”. This quote by Sean to xxxxxxx is an attempt to withhold information by saying it doesn’t exist, once LBG realised the consequence of the content of these calls. In the Novermber 2017 calls ****** was told the address had change due to a system migration issue. The next two statements show LBG had been aware of the calls as Wendy Zeal references the calls prior to Sean saying they do not exist. Case reference xxxxxxxx from the 19tt March 2018 when Wendy Zeal states that xxxxxxx address change was only first ever noted on 13 November 2017. Wendy Zeal also put this quote in writing as part of a response letter dated 23rd March 2018. This is evidence of LBG acting fraudulent. As this is fraud it voids the contract on mortgage account number *********   4 April 2018 LBG call handler James during this call James makes the following statement to ****** when asked about how ******** address had changed during a system migration “I mean there has been no system changes so actually I think they was talking about you rebranding of your account from G&G to Lloyds” further on in the conversation James comments “on the balance probably it has been likely that a similar mistake has been made here” when asked if a member of staff may of made a mistake when adding the product change. Again this shows from the outset that LBG had a doubt about the truth of the charge. James then went on to say when asked about the mistake of changing the product “No we contacted you to tell you about your previous” this was an attempt to cover up the mistakes. However, this does show mistakes made by party offering the contract and voids the contract on mortgage account number 50000081506785.    To show misrepresentation by James above we will now quote a conversation from LBG call handler Luke INUM 610142078499453 during this call Luke spoke to a second advisor who said to Luke “Okay let me just check, if it’s 2007 I don’t think I will be able to see it in my system because my system is actually for 2013 and up” this statement shows there had been a system change and shows the statement from James 4 April to be a mistake made by the party offering the contract.   In the notes James added to the system on the 5th April 2018 James quotes “I have told him we would write out with copies of the notes from the telephone call in 2007.” This is an attempt to falsify information and voids the contract on mortgage account number *********.     6th April 2018 LBG call handler Elizabeth told ******* when ******** explained no change of product had been made or requested “So what we’ve enclosed is a copy of the conversation of your mortgage in which you chose a product that had the associated fee with it, so we sent that evidence out to you in the post so you should be getting it”, Elizabeth also went on to say that she didn’t know what address the evidence had been sent to “I can’t see that information because the colleague printed off the application it’s self and sent that out to you”. This evidence was never received nor was any application form that we completed ever received, these items have also been requested as DSAR requests but never received. The only conclusion we can now come to is that the items do not exist. meaning Elizabeth made mistakes, misrepresented LBG and acted Fraudulently and falsifying facts and information and voids the contract on mortgage account number *************.     6 April 2018 LBG call handler AJ, first it is noted that the time of the calls according to the transcripts is incorrect to the time the calls took place. This is shown in the call that took place according to the transcript @ 12.52pm and lasted 3m 4s however during this call the time of 3.26pm is discussed as a promised call back by 3pm hadn’t taken place. During call 609190145394775 AJ clearly states to ******* in answering to ****** question “Have I signed to the charge” AJ “Yes, there was actually a declaration, because we will not be proceeding with a change of the product, ****** if there is no signature from both account holders. There was a declaration that you have signed that you will be changing the product. Now, the £699 conversion fee is a non-refundable product fee to the mortgage.” This statement from AJ is classed as Fraud by false representation Section 2 Fraud act 2006 and therefore voids the contract on mortgage account number ******** . Later on during this call ****** asked AJ “But how did you credit check?” this question was in relation to how the change of product was credit checked in 2007 AJ responded “Okay, there are ways to credit check” “if you are living in a different address, you and ****** has been living, or was living in a different address, but there are ways to credit checks, ******* After another minute in the conversation AJ then stated “We will not be charging a product without any of your, any of your authorisations both ******* and ******* in it.” When ****** quoted to AJ the following “I haven’t signed anything that’s what I’m telling you.” AJ responded Evidences can be produced, evidences can be produced ******, we have all the evidences, all the documents that you have signed.” The above quote was not made by mistake but made by Fraud by false representation The following quotes where all made by AJ during the said call and are all Fraud by false representation Section 2 Fraud act 2006 ·         “We can go ahead and send in all the declaration that you have signed that you have agreed to it *******, there is no problem with that.” ·         “We can produce the evidence *******” ·         “We cannot Guarantee that we are going to revert this, Okay, because all the documentation is here ********. ·         “Right, there is no fraud if you have signed to it *******, Okay.”   The next passage is in an exchange later on in the conversation ******* “How can you produce something that wasn’t signed for? Do you fraudulently produce it?” AJ “********, we have your signatures on the declaration, you have agreed to change the product.” ******** 2 You don’t. That’s what I am saying, you don’t because we haven’t signed anything.” AJ “That’s what I am saying as well that we have your signature that you have agreed to it.” ******* “I am telling you I have not received anything to agree to it so how could I have signed something?” AJ “So we admit that we have sent it to the wrong address Okay, but these charges.” ******** “Okay if you have sent it to the wrong address, can you listen” AJ “will be mentioned to you as soon as you have agreed to it Okay” ******** “I haven’t agreed to anything” AJ “Okay, if you have not agreed to it then we will just produce the documents that you have signed There is no problem with it” ******** “Documents that, that’s what I am trying to tell you, documents that I have not signed” AJ “That you have signed and we can produce, ********. ******** “Documents that I have not signed because I never ever received anything about it. I didn’t know anything about it until I phoned up last night for my redemption figure” AJ “I understand that the confirmation letter was sent out to you, to an incorrect address but the declaration has definitely been received with you signatures.” This exchange highlights three items from section two of the Fraud act 2006 as follows; made a false representation dishonestly knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading As this is fraud it voids the contract on mortgage account number *********.     6 April 2018 LBG call handler Rommel (AJ’s manager) Rommel called  ***** during the conversation Rommel quoted to ***** “When it comes to getting a new rate there should obviously be a confirmation from the bank, from the customer side there should be some signage” Rommel then goes on to quote “the document or the signatory must have been archived” then Rommel makes the statement “We can say yes it was sent out to a different or wrong address” This conversation with Rommel again highlights mistakes made by LBG with mortgage account number ******** voiding the contract.   6 April 2018 LBG call handler Myfe during a call ******* had with Myfe, Myfe put ***** on hold and had a conversation with a manager called Laura during this call Laura said to Myfe “I mean the customer is welcome to speak to me and erm, I can explain that we have received documents from him and it is open” This is another fraudulent statement made by LBG and is classed as Fraud by false representation Section 2 Fraud act 2006 and therefore voids the contract on mortgage account number ********.   6 April 2018 LBG call hander Velder call INUM 608617030411230 During this call with ****** Velder removed her headset and spoke to a colleague in the background during this conversation the colleague makes the statement “to Velder “He would have signed something” This again shows mistakes made by LBG.   6th April 2018 LBG call handler Angelito Dodoy Jr. stated to ******* and has also added to the notes on file “I have apologised for this mater but told him that the charge is valid and we can produce the documents for him but will need to be posted” This is another fraudulent statement made by LBG and is classed as Fraud by false representation Section 2 Fraud act 2006 and therefore voids the contract on mortgage account number **********     LBG call handler Amine INUM 608618030684268 during this call with ******* Amine talks to a second advisor about when a call back was meant to be made to ****** at 3pm “this note was left at ten past 3 and it’s from erm I think that might be AJ in offshore” this demonstrates notes left on accounts do not correspond with what has happened, and confirms mistakes made by the party offering the contract.     Missing / withheld / altered items from DSAR requests   21 March 2018 LBG call handler Wendy Zeal from executive complaints, although this call should have been included in a number of DSAR requests, the first request for this call was made on 23 March 2018 to LBG it has still not been received in this call Wendy hung up on ****** and also stated the calls from 13 Nov 2017 did not exist.   23 March 2018 e-mail from Sean Beveridge to Ben Taylor in this e-mail Sean states ****** has made DSAR request for calls and quotes “I have agreed that this does seem to be key, but also that our systems and notes hold no indication to what he suggests”. Ben Taylor also wrote to ******* via e-mail at 16.40 on the 23 March 2018 and quoted in the e-mail “Unfortunately we have not yet been successful and there are no notes on our systems to verify this call was received. This quote is a mistake and an attempt to withhold information voiding mortgage account number 50000081506785. On the same day Wendy Zeal wrote a letter to ****** and quoted “it wasn’t until 13 November that ****** correspondence address was noted as 27 Regents Way. If as Sean said and Ben e-mailed the call didn’t take place how can Wendy quote an action from the 13 November 2017 call? This again is confirmation of mistakes made, misrepresenting LBG and acting Fraudulently by falsifying facts and information. 13 October 2020 Suzanne Riggs confirmed LBG Technical Services confirmed a number of calls had been adapted before being sent as part of DSAR requests to ********* 20 January 2020 a FOI and DSAR request was made via e-mail for information on how many people have been impacted by system migration issues within LBG over the last 10 years. LBG have never responded to the requests although the requests have been chased.   6th April 2018 Angelelito Godoy jr called ***** however this call is missing from all DSAR requests as LBG are withholding the information from the call.   In the letter dated 10 April 2018 Wendy Zeal says “I have reviewed the calls between 5 – 7 April and it is clear you wanted an immediate refund of the product fee. During the course of the conversations with us we clearly let you know this would only be reviewed as part of your complaint about the product transfer which you dispute you requested. My response now fully answers the complaint” This quote is clearly an attempt to withhold information     9th April 2018 12.41 a DSAR request was made for LBG to supply transcripts of all calls between*****and LBG between 5 – 7 April 2018 when this DSAR was completed and Ben Taylor confirmed on the 16 August 2018 that calls had been sent, however LBG purposely withheld the calls between AJ and ****** from the 6 April within this DSAR and therefore voids the contract on mortgage account number 50000081506785.   8 October 2018 ***** made a further DSAR to Ben Taylor for the calls between 5-7 April 2018 via email by Taylor replied to Mr Boult on the 17 October 2018 and quoted “I can confirm the calls you have requested have been located and sent to you via recorded delivery.” As disk addressed to Thomas *****t was received by ****** on the 18 October the disk did not contain the calls from AJ on the 6 April as LBG had purposely withheld the information and not fulfilled the DSAR request.   A further DSAR request was made on the 18th October 2018 for transcripts of all calls between 5-7 April 2018. ***** received the transcripts on the 21 November 2018. Again a number of calls from the 6th April had been purposely withheld by LBG, with it being clear these calls did take place as the received transcripts had references to the calls.   22 November 2018 12.58 ****** made a further DSAR request “Please find attached the information request for all calls from 2 April – 7 April 2018. If transcripts of all calls are not received this time it will not look very good in court when the phone records are produced.”     Notes on LBG files 21 June 2018 added by Harvinder Garcha. “At final response stage we upheld the complaint and gave the customers the benefit of the doubt in relation to the issue of the correspondence address” This shows LBG had made mistakes meaning mortgage account number 50000081506785 is voidable.   Notes on LBG files 28 Sept 2018 Ian Write added notes to say he had spoken to Toby from FOS and had told Toby “that he had review UFSS and having reviewed there were no notes or calls between 2009 and 2018. This was an attempt to hide information from FOS   17 October 2018 after it had been proven the 13 November 2017 calls existed LBG then sent the calls out on disk address to Thomas,  Ben Whitehouse also added a note on file this day saying “customer is still waiting on the signed paperwork of the mortgage account” This shows LBG had made mistakes meaning mortgage account number 50000081506785 is voidable.   On the 08 November 2018 ***** made a DSAR’s request via e-mail the request read “Please supply a list of all products that have been held by myself stating the start and end dates along with the registered address and change of address with dates for the life time of the product.” This DSAR request was never completed by LBG. LBG have withheld this information purposely as it shows LBG did have ****** and ******* correct address of *******.    Credit card issues ******* This is a breach of the data protection act 1998 concerning receiving credit card statements on numerous occasions over a 5 year period for a third party and also none compliance of a SAR request.      We first of all received credit card chasing letters for a ****** relating to none payment of a Halifax credit card at our home address ****** back in 2014, we called the bank and where told just to return saying not know at this address, we did this for about 5 months but nothing happened although we had called many times and returned all letters. Eventually we raised a formal complaint the bank apologised and we stopped receiving the letters.   After this we thought nothing of it until 2018 when we started to receive credit card statements for ******. We called the bank and wrote many letters / e-mails by now I knew all of ******* credit card history and that ******** again hadn’t paid his card which worried us as it could black list our address. We questioned the bank as to why we had received the statements to which we had a reply that this was due to a migration of systems. and then at a later date Lloyds banking group decided due to implications with another case that they hadn’t said this and that the reason we had received the statements was due to a block on the card had been accidently removed. This of course is not the truth as if a block was simply on the card how did ****** receive new credit cards. We knew this as the statements showed that ******** between 2014 and 2018 had received new credit cards.   A DSAR request was made in November 2018 to receive transcripts of the calls concerning the credit cards and that we had been told it was due to system migration and although proof the calls had been made no transcripts have been received although on the 14 November 2018 Marin Beckwith did acknowledge calls had been made.   LBG did not report this data breach to the ICO.     Further mistakes with mortgage account number ********* The customer created date on the mortgage system is 01/01/1957 as listed in the documentation as part of DSAR’s made. In 1957 nor ****** or ******* had been born thus being a mistake made by the party offering the contract. 27 March 2018 Ben Taylor e-mailed ****** and stated “I have tried to call you today on the number you provided ********** but this has come back as an incorrect number. This is a mistake made as LBG have spoken to ******* on this number many times and included it in DSAR documentation, this is still ********* telephone number.     Conflicts of interest   A number of requests have been made to LBG for the conflicts of interest policy including DSAR requests however this policy has never been provided and it does appear LBG do carry out many conflicts as listed below   March 2018 a complaint was made about the rudeness and attitude of Wendy Zeal, to the directors and senior managers in LBG, this complaint was given to Wendy Zeal to reply to. This is a conflict of interest.    In October 2020 an official complaint was made to LBG about Sarah Harrowsmith, this complaint was given to Sarah Harrowsmith to respond to       Not all items on file have been discussed above, with all issues between March – November 2020 also left out at the moment however there is relevant evidence which outlines that mortgage account number ********is voidable on the following grounds, Terms breached, mistakes made by party offering the contract, misrepresentation, and fraudulent (omitting / falsifying facts or information). LBG have also acted fraudulently to cover up mistakes made, whilst also not disclosing / purposely withholding and altering information which should have been included in DSAR requests. The above examples also highlight offences by LBG under the fraud act 2006, Can we please remind you this is a criminal offence and that the company officers will be liable to be charged with the offence as well as the company. We would also like to remind LBG that they will be liable for all legal costs ******* and ********* occur moving forward.    
    • Thought I'd give this a bit of a bump, car cash point now refusing to reply to emails, complaints or return calls. Also refusing to supply me with a copy of the default notice, the sar and refusing to acknowledge the fact that they are duty bound to place an account on hold for 30 days when I am in discussion with a debt help organisation.    Bit the bullet and rang chartsbridge. They've placed the account on hold whilst I speak with the debt advisor etc...bur here is where it gets interesting...    They contacted ccp who were quick enough to reply to them, despite ignoring me completely. Ccp stated to them that they weren't willing to negotiate a settlement as the account had been in default since last February... The default notice wasn't issued until late August!!!    Chartsbridge now refusing to answer requests for details of the default notice they were supplied with.... Something stinks!! 
    • So I sent a SAR and CCA to Lowell and the Halifax.  I am awaiting the result from the Halifax who say it could take until March. Lowell provided me with exactly the same documents as before and completely ignored the CCA request. When I informed them that they had failed to provide what I had requested their response was to issue me a  County Court Claim for an account number bearing no resemblance to the paperwork they have in my name.  Happy days.......
    • may not will..read it carefully.   snotty letter time.   in this very same forum for exactly the same place there is one from yesterday.
    • Goodmorning   I hope everyone is well and thanks to everyone so far for their advice   Just about to submit SA online   wanted to check a few things please   1. for my fuel mainly, lot of the receipts have faded and i use my internet bank statements for evidence of fuel etc. For example if I wen to BP petrol station, and filled up £40, it would show up on my bank statement and thats my evidence. If i do buy a coffee whilst there, I tend to pay separately, thus keeping the fuel payments e separate. i thn aportion 60% of the fuel cost to business, as ~40% i for personal use.     Therefore, is this method of keeping records acceptable to HMRC?       2. on the online SA form, there is a box for signature. if Im submitting online, do i have to sign that and if yes, how?   3. NIC2. It asked if i had profits over ~£6,500 ( cant remember exact figure). Thats a yes. So next was if i wanted to give NIC2. When I choose yes, a red message error comes up preventing me from proceeding. Only when I enter 'NO' onto the NIC2 that it allows me to contribute. Does that mean the system thinks I shouldn't pay NIC2?     4. Last year, on the SA of 18-19 ( that my acct had done for me and submitted), I ended up making an overpayment of £800 by 31/1/2020. I also made the first payment on account for 19-20 of half that amount , ie 400.   in this years return, im asked if theres any underpayment or underpayment from previous years. hen I enter the overpayment, again i get a red error message which stops me proceeding with the form. Only when I enter, 'NO', meaning theres no over or underpayments , that the online portal allows me to proceed with my SA application. In effect it means for this year I will have to pay what i owe, without taking into consideration that I had overpaid a ttal of £1200 ( 800 + 400), last year. How can I address that please?
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Local Car Garage Repairs Bill Help


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3178 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

Hopefully I can attract some knowledge from other caggers, the story as it stands tonight is as follows.

 

I took my car down to my local auto centre to have a problem with the car diagnosed and fixed, the local garage owner is a friend (ok not close friend, but friend/aquantence all the same).

 

There currently is a bill of circa £700 owing from the car garage owner to Myself for works done by meself to him within the last year (Some computer networking work I DID), I also ran 2 recoveries on his recovery truck, and also for some labouring work, he owes me around £700..

 

The work he has been doing on my vehicle currently stands at circa £475.00, we have come to logg-a-heads regarding this bill as I think he has been dwiddling me. He say the second hand part he put on cost £100+, I have many many quotes from used car dealers/scrap yards and none of them have quoted more than £30 for this particular part.

 

Anyway, today (Tuesday 14th) when closing the garage, an employee there (another friend) told me to move my car out onto the street so he could get other cars in and out of the lock up, I parked my car on the main road, and have kept the key, I will not return the key until the bill is sorted, both the bill for the car and the outstanding monies owed to me.

 

Where do I stand, I know it can be a criminal offence for me to remove the vehicle whilst witholding payment, but does this now become a CIVIL matter as he owes me money also (More money than I owe him)

 

He has blocked my vehicle in on the main road with a Ford Transit mini bus at rear and Vauxhall Zafira at the front, BUMPER TO BUMPER...

 

I expect it to remain blocked, but where do I stand regarding the money he owes me and the money I owe him..

 

I also have some dirt on him, I know for example that in his other shop premises, his electricity meter is wired, they had it removed last week under warrant and police attendance due to the leccy bill not being paid, and I know he wired it to get free electricity becuase I was there in the shop when he did it......

 

 

Thanks in advance for any help, need as much as possible for when I see him face to face tomorrow

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like any 'gentleman's agreement' you had has gone out of the window!

 

So it's two seperatate matters me thinks. You invoice him and he should then pay you within the terms that you have agreed with him. If not, you send him an LBA (letter before action) and after that if he still dosn't pay, you issue proceedings in the small claims court adding interest onto the debt.

 

As for your side of the 'bargin' you should pay him what you owe and follow the above. He holds the ace card at the moment which is your car. f you have a dispute over the bill, ask him for a complete break down in costs and explain the high cost of this 'part' and see if you can come to some sort of arrangement between the two issues.

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep us posted as to what happens and whether he pays you or you have to issue a court claim.

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Get hold of some trolley jacks, raise the wheels off the ground, slowly pull your car out from edge of road, once clear of front and rear blockages, lower back down, unlock doors and drive off :-)

 

have a nice one

 

N

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update...

 

I paid him £475 on visa card, 2 days later I went to the garage to collect the vehicle.

 

He said there were now more problems, he said the ECU had fried and required a replacement at a cost od circa £300.00

 

Well I am fuming to say the least, the agreement we had when I first brought the car to him was for him to give me a quote to repair the vehicle and get it back on the road.

 

After initial checks which put £240.00 on to the bill (his in-house auto-electrician to diagnose problem) he said in total with the £240 bill so far he could complete all the works required to get the car fixed and back on the road for £475.00.

 

So we had an agreement the car would be fixed and on the road for £475.00 which has been paod on Visa Card.

 

Now hes wanting a further £300 to complete the job, I said forget it, I had the car towed home, The car is now outside my house still not running and in the same posision it was when I first took it to him and before i paid £475.00.

 

 

Can I do a Visa Chargeback for Services/Product not as described?????

 

He described a fully fixed car for £475.00, he lied

 

Do I have to do the County Court thing??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, do a charge back ASAP. Once done (and now you have your car back), issue proceedings against him for the money he owes you.

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Yes, do a charge back ASAP. Once done (and now you have your car back), issue proceedings against him for the money he owes you.

 

 

UPDATE from Santander

 

Question? AM I BEING FOBBED OFF???

 

Here is a scanned copy of the letter I have received from Santander after initiating a Chargeback

 

 

 

They are saying I cannot claim visa chargeback because the claim is for QUALITY OF SERVICE, but that is not the issue, the issue is I NEVER received the service, i was quoted and paid £475.00 for the vehicle to be fixed completely, the vehicle WAS NOT fixed so I never received the service paid for.

 

http://parkingcharges.co.uk/bmsia/001.png

 

Where do I go from here? Do I appeal to Santander? Just go straight for N1 county claim?

 

Any help much apprechiated, and sorry for the delay in updating this thread.

 

002.jpg

 

David (thepalace1)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car was running was it not when you put it outside tthe garage at their request? and you said the bill was currently £475 so was the work complete or not at that stage, if it was then why did you not just drive it away? can you clarify?

It seems you have two claims then, one for your and one for the work to your car!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The car was running was it not when you put it outside tthe garage at their request? and you said the bill was currently £475 so was the work complete or not at that stage, if it was then why did you not just drive it away? can you clarify?

It seems you have two claims then, one for your and one for the work to your car!

 

Yes it was running, but the inside of the car was in a thousand bits, most of dashboard out, all trims unscrewed, ecu hanging on floor from wires etc etc. We cane to an agreement that he would finish the job, put all the inside of the car back together, and complete the job but he wanted the quoted amound (£475.00) paid there and then, so after I paid he put the car back together, I collected a few days later and he said it is still broken and needs a new ECU at an aditional £300 ish, but he had quoted me £475.00 ALL IN repair, so this quote should cover anything needed to fix the car, so after paying the £475.00 the car was still not fixed as agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so what did he do for the £475? did you get a receipt? parts/labour etc.

I think you would have a valid claim, if you have some record in writing as to what the problem was and what the work was!

Also sounds a bit fraudulaent if he lead you to belive if was fixed and you paid the £475 and then told you it was not!

I suggest you write a letter to him ( recorded ) asking for your money back or you will start legal action and mention the fraud bit, give him 14 days to respond.

You may wish to consider a sepertae action to recover the other money he owes you ( hope you have this recrded ) and write in the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He said he changed the Idle Control Valve and the Throttle Body, But on further inspection it seems highly possible that the throttle control body was never changed, and he just said it was and charged for it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does not sound £475 worth of work to me and it could of been the ecu all along! if it is in fact faulty? have you had it checked anywhere else?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi there I have been following all about this garage my name is Chris Cullen I have a garage of my Owen and are willing to test your car and give you a answer on what has been done and what has not free of charge

My company is xxxxxxxxxxxxxx thanks

 

 

Thank you very much for your kind offer as above.

 

Un fortunately I have had to sell the vehicle as it was a relied apon vehicle, so I had to sell it and get a replacement.

 

But thanks soo much for your kindest offer.

 

The majority of the bill I am told is made up of £30 per hour for the in-house auto electrician, he said the auto electrician spent X amount of hours on the vehicle, when infact I have a written document that will be signed in front of a solicitor later this week to make it a Statutory Decleration, from an X member of his staff, that states that the autop electrician spent only about 20% of the time billed for on the vehicle.

 

The rest of the fees were for a ''SECOND HAND USED'' throttle body and idle control valve.

 

I know the throttle body was not changed because there was one of those quirky niggles with the cars excellerator, it was sticky when first pressing it, this error was attributed to the half moon wheel thing on the throttle body where the throttle cable goes round, when you used to lube it up with WD40 it used to be fine for a week or to until it wore off.

 

After he supposedly changed the throttle body the error persisted, I could even see the discoulouration on the throttle body from where I used to regularily spray WD40, unless of cause the odds are he took the throttle body from a car with the exact same niggly problem where its owners have also been spraying lube on it, But it think William Hill would give me a good price on that one.

 

 

The ECU was independently check and it was broken ''A mosfet chip inside it was reduced to molten mess'' it had burned and melted.

 

Although I only ever smelt the burning once the car had finally been returned half fixed, I never smelt any burning when the car originally went to him.

Edited by Conniff
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found out this about the garage.

 

My distant friend just took his 2000 W Reg Fiat Punto to him for MOT, it passed after £80 of remedial work.

 

I contacted him and said you shouldn't have gone there he is dodgy as hell.

 

ANy way, I said to him, Just out of interest let me put your car in for a second mot (even though it had just passed) and I would pay the £20 MOT fee (Half Price Deal at my new place i go)

 

It came back as a BIG FAT fail... 16 hours after it passed with £80 remedial work.

 

Now some people will say YEAH i have a guy who will push my car through an mot.

BUT my friend has 2 children, 1 5 years and the other 4 months, he doesn;t want a car pushed through its mot, he wants to know the vehicle is SAFE and road worthy.

 

Any way, the new garage who failed it said its probobly not worth goping to vosa at this stage, but to sit on it and use it in my case as a sort of reference of leverage if it comes to any bargaining or to help with credability in court or something,

 

ANy way , IT FAILED after 16 hours (Now I dont expect 16 hours and 21 miles later for this to have happened by course or general wear and tear) these problems must have been present at the original MOT PASS TEST

 

Parking brake lever has no reserve travel (3.1.6b)

Fuel pipe insecure (7.2.1)

Nearside Front passengers seat insecure (6.2.A.1)

Rear box clamp Exhaust has a major leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no 'fail this' or 'pass this' in the examination. What is passed by one examiner can be failed by another and vice versa, the decision as to pass or fail is the examiners.

 

You could have taken that car for another test elsewhere and it could have passed with flying colours or failed on even more items.

 

Parking brake lever has no reserve travel (3.1.6b)

Fuel pipe insecure (7.2.1)

Nearside Front passengers seat insecure (6.2.A.1)

Rear box clamp Exhaust has a major leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)

 

 

Pass or fail can differ even between examiners in the same MoT station, one could well pass something the other would fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have some dirt on him, I know for example that in his other shop premises, his electricity meter is wired, they had it removed last week under warrant and police attendance due to the leccy bill not being paid, and I know he wired it to get free electricity becuase I was there in the shop when he did it......

Thanks in advance for any help, need as much as possible for when I see him face to face tomorrow

 

You are actually admitting to being an accomplice to theft. I suggest you delete the above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I have now issued a County Court Claim for the defendant to refund the £475.00 as the contracted services were not supplied.

 

However, I am struggling on the wording of the Particulars of Claim which I understand must be sent to the court and the defendant within a certain amount of time after the claim is issued.

 

Could any legal minded folk help with the best way to word it and lay it out.

 

Much appreichiated

 

 

thepalace1

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have now issued a County Court Claim for the defendant to refund the £475.00 as the contracted services were not supplied.

 

However, I am struggling on the wording of the Particulars of Claim which I understand must be sent to the court and the defendant within a certain amount of time after the claim is issued.

 

Could any legal minded folk help with the best way to word it and lay it out.

 

Much appreichiated

 

 

 

 

 

 

thepalace1

 

Well that's more or less it. Just add the invoice number and say "as per invoice number xxxxx".

 

You may find some help here. Don't forget to claim the interest.

 

http://smallclaims.me.uk/index.html

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
UPDATE from Santander

 

Question? AM I BEING FOBBED OFF???

 

Here is a scanned copy of the letter I have received from Santander after initiating a Chargeback

 

 

 

They are saying I cannot claim visa chargeback because the claim is for QUALITY OF SERVICE, but that is not the issue, the issue is I NEVER received the service, i was quoted and paid £475.00 for the vehicle to be fixed completely, the vehicle WAS NOT fixed so I never received the service paid for.

 

http://parkingcharges.co.uk/bmsia/001.png

 

Where do I go from here? Do I appeal to Santander? Just go straight for N1 county claim?

 

Any help much apprechiated, and sorry for the delay in updating this thread.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34939[/ATTACH]

 

David (thepalace1)

 

 

Can anyone say weather or not santander have just fobbed me off, can I complain to Santander and have them re-look at it, as according to Visa, if you have failed to receive services paid for then the bank must issue a chargeback!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have today received the Acknowledgement of Service.

 

I originally filed the claim in the following format (Not his actual details)

 

Mr Andrew Other

Repair Motor Service

 

On the AOS it says

 

The defendant's name has been corrected to read Repair Motors Service Ltd.

 

He has taken it out of his name, and addes an s to the motor part.

 

I have checked Companies house and the new name of Repair Motors Service Ltd is not registered.

 

His old company name of Repair Motor Service IS registered as DISSOLVED.

 

Is there any significance in this???

 

I was under the impression that according to the Companies Act 1985 and 1989, all Ltd companies must be registered..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contact the court and ask them pointing out that the company which is registered is dissolved. Seems to me he is trying to pull a fast one.

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...