Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. 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. Can a PPC (claimant) 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.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
  • 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

Used car, faulty braking system after 3 weeks. SOGA or repair?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4224 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

Hi,

 

We recently bought an 08 C4 picasso (just over 50k miles) from a local dealer. Paid £7500 (£1000 part ex, £6500 balance). Took no extra warranty (my bad).

 

We recently had a trip to scotland and while in a car park the braking system failed, warnings for braking system failure, handbraking system failure, ESP failure and depolution failure all at the same time. I had to contact a local garage as we were stuck. He said to leave it a while and try switching the engine off/on etc to see if it clears as he couldnt help at all. He advised we should get it to citroen.

 

We only had the car 3 weeks so I spoke to the car dealer we bought it from explaining the situation and he said I should get Citroen to look at it. I said he should take the financial hit for that and after some back and forth with the dealers mechanic they have agreed to get the codes read at their own garage.

 

Where exactly do I stand her regarding Sale of Goods and what should I expect from the dealer?

 

Any help is appreciated.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that you are in a position to reject the car - but very certainly you should expect to be reimmbursed the full cost of repair plus any expenses associated with the breakdown.

 

Mke sure that you keep all bills and do everything in writing - not on the phone unless you record the calls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the help so far guys.

 

Where would we stand regarding the part ex value of our car. Would be expect a full refund of the sale. £7500?

 

Will see what the garage says today when they look at the car.

 

Thanks again

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hand brake refuses to release when the warning is on. We cannot drive the car because of the handbrake failure so cannot say if the brakes are failing when the error is on. When the errors clear, the handbrake and brakes and the car drive normally. Seems intermittent.

 

Not happy about having braking failures regardless when I had 3 young kids in the back, especially on a car we had less than 3 weeks.

 

Hope that helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, back from garage.

 

Walked away happy that they dealt with it in a professional manner.

 

Codes are showing it is an ABS pump failure. Mechanic said maybe just a loose connection or wiring issue and will contact Citroen for advice. I asked them to cover all costs and they will ring me back with an more info on fault and whether they will accept repair costs.

 

Thanks guys for the help.

 

Will keep you updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How very true scania!!! Fortunately here Citroen do say a fault exists. What's interesting is that they say it could be this or that which sort of reinforces your argument and my opinion with them a few years ago. Essentially they don't have the knowledge to interpret what the failure codes mean.

 

To the OP, look up this failure mode on Gooffle. Citroen will want to replace the whole unit but I cannot see the supplying dealer buying into this as is big bucks. It is possible to get a perfectly reasonable re-con unit.

 

I would though question the fact that the park brake won't release. It still should even with a ABS pump failure as is a seperatebrake system in it's own right. It suggests to me that the diagnosis is potentially nearly correct but not fully confirmed.

 

What you need to remember though, and this is unfortunately inherrant on all cars these days and not fully explained is that provided you have servo assistance ( which is not usually electronically controlled) and there is no fluid leak you still have a safe and reliable braking system. You may not have ABS or ESP or DSC if fitted but then you go back to the good old days. I have always been of the opinion that if you need these systems you are not driving within your or the cars capabilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just a quick update.

 

The car was sent to Citroen for a full diagnostic and check. I sat 2.5hrs and was again told its the ABS pump. Dealer agreed to repair this. Dealer garage could only fit our car in this week for repair (10 Sep). They have fitted the ABS pump and the car is now with Citroen to be charged and tested overnight. Fingers crossed its fixed but I havent heard anything back yet so hope its ok.

 

If they cannot clear these faults what do you think is my best option? We really dont want to have ongoing issues with braking systems when we have 3 kids in the back let alone ourselves.

 

Will update if/when this is resolved.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Another update.

 

Car was repaired (replaced ABS Pump) and after 2 weeks of use the faults have returned. I phoned the dealer and said we are rejecting the car and want a refund as we have given them the opportunity to repair the car and have failed. Salesman said he would need to discuss with the boss/owner on what could be arranged but he seems to want to offer a different car rather a refund because the car is in our name, wear and tear etc..

 

I have spoken to trading standards (Citizens Advice) and they said we should write to formally reject the car. Trading standards want to take action themselves as its classed as a dangerous fault but I told them to hold off until I resolve something with the dealer.

 

Does this seem the correct thing to do so far?

 

Thanks

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, dealer took the car and said he would take it to Citroen to get sorted, got it back from Citroen fault code P0562 cleared and a new battery.

 

Got in the car tonight, Faulty Handbrake...

 

I think I have only one way to go here and that's a full refund???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be very careful with the advice from trading standards. From an engineering/legal point of view the car will not be deemed to be dangerous as the braking system will still operate. ABS is a driver aid andnothing more.

Fault P0562 is a classic low voltage code which will stop the EPB from releasing. When dealers replace batteries they invariably just fit one from stock, they need charging for at least 24hrs prior to fitment.

This sounds like a classic miss diagnosis again.

 

To reject the car on a "dangerous" grounds case will be very risky. Persistent fault not rectified after three attempts would be the grounds to go on.

 

And of course you do realise that by rejecting the car you have to park it up and it can take over a year to resolve any legal action?

 

Personally I'dkeep on at the supplying dealer.He now has grounds to go afte rthe Citroen dealer and the fact that he has arranged for it to go says he's doing all he reasonably can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the above. A lot of cars now should never have the battery disconnected, they should be connected via jump leads to a bettery while their own is changed. dunno if you car is one of them but it is something that is becoming more and more a common.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just that Conniff. They will charge a battery for a few hours and fit and everything looks OK. What thedealers don't realise and is not often documentated is that all they will see is a surface charge. They need a deep discharge such as all lights on and heated windows etc to get rid of it ..........only then will there be a true reflection of the "actual" voltage.

 

The control units are very sensitive to this.

 

I still insist this is perhaps an over reaction to a rectifiable problem and the car is not "dangerous". The dealer seems to be doing what he can, the owner seems to have a misconception of to what is a fault and what is not..........not uncommon on modern cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback guys.

 

Misconception or not this car is not roadworthy, does not park safely and has left my other half with 3 kids stuck in the dark and myself stuck in the bloody petrol station for 15 minutes trying to get the hand brake off etc... We probably would not be insured should anything happen as it is an ongoing fault so I am just covering my arse.

 

Apart from that the dealer has agreed to a replacement but they don't have a suitable car so he said he would 'source' one from a motability list?? What if we dont like it, what if its not a car would would have gone out and bought to start with where do we stand.

 

I know its all sound petty and maybe we are over reacting but we just want a car that works and it seems we have to suffer without a car until this is sorted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...