Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well done on your victory!  👏   You must have a magic touch, it's extremely rare that the PPCs accept an appeal.
    • Court hearing today. WON on all counts of claim. The win though is not the interesting bit, but the ‘why’ is really useful. We were allocated 90 minutes but it took two hours by telephone . The defense were represented but I failed to note whether by a solicitor, barrister or other advocate.   As soon as the judge finished the introductions and before he had time to pass the time over to me to explain my case, the defense interrupted and asked the claim be struck out. He then spent the next 40 minutes discussing with the judge that I had failed to properly serve my bundle upon which I intended to rely. The judge asked me to explain and I said I had served the bundle to them and the court 3 days before the deadline, by signed for post with a tracking number to the address named in the summons being the Royal Mail Head Office in London. I said it was a bit rich that they were making this request when they had failed to serve me and the court with their bundle within the deadline and that I had only just received it. They quoted a certain principle of law (which I failed to write down) which explained that service of documents must be made to the address which either party may request service to be made. They claimed that six months earlier when they lodged their defense to my summons, the covering letter had been sent from their Sheffield office and it constituted the address for future service of documents. I of course had no idea of such a requirement and said that a simple letter heading on a piece of correspondence was not the same as a formal sentence in a letter requesting such future service. It gave the judge some concern but he decided to park the issue and allow the hearing to continue.   I was able to explain my case for the £50 compensation for the lost parcel using the evidence from the defense bundle referencing the Overseas Post Scheme. It was all straight forward. I explained the facts and let them speak for themselves. I then moved on to the delayed Special Delivery items. This is where the fun began because I had to argue against their terms and conditions. I used the defense bundle referencing the UK Post Scheme. I quoted from various clauses which explained the rules relating to claims. That ALL delay claims must be made within 3 months, then that Special Delivery was actually 14 days so not 3 months after all, then another clause which confirmed the deadline was 3 months for all delay claims. I quoted further that these were “common terms” and that some services (Special Delivery was one) had additional terms which were called “specific terms”. Another clause stated that where a conflict arises between common and specific terms, then specific terms took priority. So I turned to the Special Delivery section to quote the specific terms as these would have priority. There was only one term that referenced claims. It simply said If we do not succeed in attempting to deliver by this time (being the next day) we will refund your postage. I used this single phrase to take priority over the 3 months  or 14 day deadline mentioned in the common terms. I discussed how the various clauses conflicted with themselves as if the clauses themselves did not know what the deadlines were and how ambiguous and confusing it was.   The time was then past to the defense and he started to argue there was no contract nor liability in tort (a substantial portion of their written defense document and bundle discussed this argument). It made me smile because I was ready for that. The judge though was ahead of the game and (especially because 40 minutes had been wasted at the beginning) he did not want to hear of it. After about one minute, he stopped the defense by saying exactly what I was preparing to say. Simply that I was not suing under contract or tort but under the conditions of the various postal schemes for which they were liable. He asked the defense to answer my claims. The defense then prevaricated trying to argue the clause that distinctly mentioned the 14 day time limit within which to make a claim for delay (which of course it did) ( as an aside, most people might accept that deadline and not bother to pursue a claim). He had nothing to add about the lost parcel.   Time had run out, we had no questioning and the judge said he was summing up. He was quite happy I had served my documents sufficiently well and took the view that the defense had fallen foul of the court order so he was cancelling out the question about valid service. He had no difficulty in accepting the claim that the lost parcel was valid and awarded me the £50 compensation. He then spoke at longer length about the delay claims and the conflict in the clauses. (at this point I had no idea which way this bit would go). Then, he spoke of how a business such as Royal Mail should not be accepting clauses in their contracts which were clearly inconsistant. (that’s when I started to relax), (and then the best takeaway of the hearing), He said that common law provides in the event of a standard contract if there is any ambiguity, the interpretation should be judged against the person drafting the contract. He called it Contra Proferendem. (I had no idea of that concept but had effectively explained it anyway). I was awarded the whole claim plus costs. The defense asked for permission to appeal which was refused.    Remember the phrase “Contra Proferendem” . I shall be looking more into it. I am sure it will come in handy against any institution that have drafted contracts that cannot be individually negotiated. And will certainly be useful for a long while yet against Royal Mail et al.
    • The White House highlights the upcoming offer of free trips in the US by the ride-hailing firms. View the full article
    • Original loan was £5000 unsecured over 5 years, 28 payments remaining, he wanted to extend it back up to 5 year.........the bank offered him £6700 to clear his credit card and the bank loan, £135 per month from the original figure of £121    One debt of two years old and one debt of 15 months        
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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 3144 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

Don't expect too much help from Citroen UK. They know jack all about cars and rely solely on their diagnostic computers.

If no fault shows up-----then no fault exists. ???????????????????????:mad2:

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...