Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Over 2 months and still not repaired


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4442 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

Hey guys, its a long one so please bare with me!

 

2005 Saab 9-3 bought off from a garage with 54K on 01/07/11. 3K later, car presents with EML around beginning of December and take it back to garage. They simply turn off the light with a diagnostic tool and advise to wait and see if it comes back on. Light is back on a week or so later and they advise us to go through warranty company.

12 months warranty was purchased at the time of the sale from garage but with no explanation of claim limit and whats covered etc.

Warranty coompany say take it to Halfords, car was driven to halfords on 14/12/11 and is still currently there. Long story short, cambelt jumped teeth leading to bent valves was the original diagnosis.

Warranty company tried to wiggle out but Halfords argued our corner and they sent oit an engineer in new year and repair work authorised (cost £1031) and completed by 13/01/12.

Expecting to pick the car up we were told that further issues were present namely loud knocking noise and not revving past 3000rpm. As we had been without a car for a month, Halfords gave us a courtesy car.

Car was stripped with no fault found so sent on a recovery truck to diesel specialist. Diesel specialist unable to find a fault so car sent back to Halfords. Halfords then discovered the fault to be throttle body (revving issue) and small end bearing (knocking).

On 17/02/12, Halfords tell us car can't be repaired under warranty as max claim limit of £1000 has been used. They want the courtesy car back and suggest we take it up with garage we bought it off. Garage are suggesting Halfords are incompetent and they have no responsibility to fix the car. Consumer Direct suggest I send a formal letter to garage which I will do.

 

Now it's been two months and the car is currently at Halfords with the engine still stripped. Forgot to say, Halfords recommend a replacement second hand engine rather than repair as labour will be less and poses less risk as further engine parts may be damaged. Halfords say we can keep the car there for free (they can charge storage apparently) although its not kept indoors. Desperately need a car so having to SORN Saab which Halfords are aware of and buy a runaround till it gets resolved.

 

Now on the 31/12/11, I presented the garage with a letter before action outlining SOGA and my consumer rights, while also making them aware of my outcomes and a time period of 7 days for reply. I know it's been nearly 2 months since the letter before action but can I proceed with action now or should I send another letter before action?

 

Thanks for any help guys!

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a difficult one... the dealer has to prove that the fault ws not there at the time of purchase.. and it obviuosly wasn't as the eML light was not on and it presumably drove satisfactorily.

 

A cambelt doesn't normally 'jump' teeth, I suspect here that Halfords have put the cambelt back on onr totth 'out' and this is what has bent the valve(s).

 

And its not the dealer's fault if halfords are incompetent.

 

The thing is that the eML and the jumped cambelt are definitely 2 separate problems, the EML probably caused by a lambda sensor or similar, the cambelt by halford's incompetence.

 

The dealer in my opinion isn't really liablr here, as it is obviuos that the fault did not exist at the time of purchase.

 

Sorry that it might not be what you want to hear, but I think this could get long and involved.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not convinced...

 

If you drive down the road, and the wheel falls off, then it was obviously ok when purchased, you drove down the road. If the engine falls out the next day, that was fine too, it was in there when you left.

 

Most people would argue that there was already a problem that only showed itself after you went down the road. The EML could well be caused by a long standing fault that had just got slightly worse - from what I have heard it is often possible to fix the EML light by doing a reset, and sometimes the fault does not come back for weeks, then every time the reset is used it clears the fault for less time, the fault getting progressively worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it's not the dealers fault.. but the OP may well have a hard job showing that it was.

 

But it is obviously 2 different probelms with NO report from the op of small end knock or vlave problems prior to its going to halfords for repair.

 

I still think hlfords have put the cambelt back on a tooth or two out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP I thuoght it was just the EML light, as per yourfirst post.

 

According to you the knocking was diagnosed later?

 

I still think halfords have coked this u by putting the cambelt back on a tooth out... very bad news on a diesel!...

Link to post
Share on other sites

A noticable knocking noise was present at the time of the car going into Halfords. Although I haven't heard it myself the knocking noise is still present. How have you come to the diagnosis that Halfords did not put the cambelt on properly?

 

edit: Having re-read your first post oddjobbob, I think you may have misread read my OP. The car was faulty before going into Halfords, the diagnosis for the fault was defined as 'Cambelt jumped teeth, leading to 6 bent valves'.

 

Consumer Direct advise a pursue a claim against the garage. Now having already sent the garage a letter before action on new years eve, should I send another one now that the situation is slightly different?

Edited by cdti_88
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...