Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Today , after a lotof years i recieved a letter from this lot. Very friendly, "Were writing to remind you that we havent had any contact from you in a while".  The velvet fist, followed by  a veiled threat to get their preferred debt collectors involved. Yep dead right. In 1992/3 I took out a Student load under duress from DHSS. uP TO 2000 I hadsucessfully gotten deferment on low income. But rarther thansign on as unemployed,I decided to be self employed. I applied and they asked for all sorts of documents. I obliged and then correspondance ceased from them, circa 2001. To date  I have had no correspondance from Student Loans. I was made  redundant in 2009 and  reached 65 in 2012 , at which age the loan should have been cancelled. Now ,today, 12 years on retirement and 11 ( at least years after last contact) I get a letter with veiled threats. Do I , as I smell a scam a) ignore it and hope that Erudio will think that this phishing attempt has failed or b) respond with a statute barred letter or c) remind them of legal terms that loan should be cancelled 12 years ago or d) combination of b) +c)      
    • But I'm not mixing and matching. Sure, when researching I do check multiple avenues, but when speaking, I will open a single post. The Fb post was made in March, it is now June, time has passed, and when the suggestion was made, no further information was given on how I should progress beyond "send a letter", which has meant that I've needed to start another stream - this one, but only after taking the time to research first.
    • hes not turning you away he is simply saying that you should stick to one channel of advice. he is perfectly happy with that channel being this forum, and he will help you   all he is saying, and I agree, is that you should stick to one help channel, not mix and match 3/4
    • As long as we are clear . Do the reading and post your letter of claim in draft form as requested and we can go from there.    
  • 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

Garage refuses to repair head gasket after 7 days of purchasing the car still within the 14 day guarantee


Holloway93
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4317 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

206 Diesel turbo. 2L 51 reg

Money paid for car £740

money back for bold tyres £80

money back for head gasket £170

 

 

I bought a second hand car from a big named garage in July. The car is a Peugeot 206 D-turbo 2L. 51 Reg.

 

The day i drove it off the forecourt i had to take it straight to Kwick-fit to replace the front 2 tyres as they were completely bold and highly illegal.

Shortly after i took it to get the tracking done in hope of this being the reason the car was pulling to one side when accelerating.

I got this done but it still did it.

 

I then took it to the local garage and they informed me that it was something that needing bending back into shape and supporting.

 

Within a week of having the car i took it to the local garage for a 'health check'

they noticed the car warning light to top up engine coolant kept appearing and suggested i took it back to where i had bought it from as they suspect a blown head gasket.

 

I quickly took it back to the dealer i bought it from and they asked to take a look themselves and clarified the diagnosis of a blown head gasket.

 

we asked if they would fix it for us free of charge or to give us a full refund seen as the car is still in the '14 day no quibble money back guarantee'

 

they refused bluntly that they will not take the car back but would fix it for a reduced fee,

quoted £960 from them as opposed to £1000 quoted by my local garage.

 

There reason for voiding the guarantee was that i have had the front 2 tyres replaced which should not have been left on the car for me to drive away in

and that hey had given us a cheque for £80 to go towards the fee of replacing the tyres.

 

I had asked the sales assistant when viewing the car if the tyres would be replaced on purchase and was told 'no'

when i first saw the car myself (an 18yr old female with only basic knowledge of cars) had a short drive around the business car park.

 

I then went to view the car with my older brother who is a bit of a DIY mechanic

but we were not able to get inside the car as the keys had been locked away in the warehouse.

 

In the end myself and my mother did some sums and worked out a deal to offer the garage.

 

We totted up the money i had spent fixing the car and the money i had bought it for and the amount i had to spend on the car in the first place.

 

We worked out that if the garage coughed up £250 towards the repairs of the head gasket then i could afford to fix the car.

 

in the end we got back an extra £170 to go towards the payment of fixing the head gasket which in total has cost me £1100.

 

i would like to know what you think the chances are of me getting any of my money back if i went through the small claims court which has been suggest by a solicitor.

 

Do i stand a chance against the top branded garage?

are they right to have done what they did?

Any advice/opinions on this problem would be VERY much appreciated.

 

Thank you very much for reading.

 

Barbara

Edited by Holloway93
Link to post
Share on other sites

any chance of using the edit button inthe gray bar below the above msg and adding some blank lines please?

 

dxc

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

warranty or not [they are EXTRA on top of you statutory rights]

under SOGA you have every right to refuse the car and demand a full refund.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers-fairly/sogahome/forcustomers

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer1_cars_and_other_vehicles_e/cars_buying_a_secondhand_car_e.htm

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure which garage is the biggest rip off, the one that sold you a dodgy car or the one that charged £1100 for doing head gasket. Head gasket on your car is at most a £500 job including all parts and having the head skimmed if it needed doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone buy a car and drive it away with 'extremely illegal' bald tyres? But on the other hand, a trader is not allowed to sell an un-roadworthy car which means that if the tyres were that bad then you should be talking to Trading standards and VOSA.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write ( take by hand and get them to sign or send recorded ) to to them asking for your money back as car faulty ( head gasket etc.) and not fit for purpose under soga giving them 7 days to repond or will take them to court. ( you must ask first as this is the court rules )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Head gasket has already been done by the sounds of whats been said so if they get money back for car then they will still be out of pocket by a lot of money. Would it not be wiser to do a letter for payment in full of having head gasket done and if they are not willing to pay then a LBA to get money back that has been spent..

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...