Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Potential Dodgy MOT outfit collaborating with seconhand car dealer


GillyR
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4253 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

I bought a car on Tuesday 28thAugust 2012 from a second-hand dealer. I had a few concerns regarding thevehicle at the time of purchase regarding the brakes, tyres & excessive noise when turning the steering wheel at full but was assured everything was in order, full MOT given and my concerns were merely due to the vehicle having been sat idle for 4 weeks. I immediately took the car to my local MOT testingstation and the repairs required are excessive to the amount of over £1000. In particular my local reputable MOT provider has noted an 'egg' tyre which they believe has been tampered with in order to disguise this serious issue in order to make a saleof the vehicle.

 

The MOT testing station that originally passed the vehicle is next door to thesales garage and they undertake all of the MOT’s for the second hand vehicles sold by the dealer.

 

What concerns me is how a vehicle that failed an MOT & then subsequently passed on the same day (27/07/2012) still has serious mechanical issues relating to the vehicle that were identified at the point of the initial ‘fail’ MOT on the27/7/2012. The vehicle was then classed as having a ‘pass’ MOT and sold with this. My local MOT provider has documented & identified the original ‘fail’ MOT issues still exist !!!!!

 

This vehicle was to be driven by my 18 year old daughter (a new driver) with an‘egg’ tyre that could have resulted in a serious road traffic accident; thank goodness I had the foresight to have the vehicle checked by a reputable MOT testing station on the very same day of the purchase.

 

I have contacted the dealer and they will not refund me for the vehicle which was only purchased 3 days ago and has not been driven since the purchase. I have also tried to call the original MOT Testing station several times but they will not take my calls!

 

I strongly believe the two parties are working incollaboration in order to pass off vehicles to unsuspecting customers when the vehicles are indeed not road worthy and I wish to have both companies investigated. These Companies are selling a lot of vehicles on a weekly basis and need to be investigated before a serious incident occurs!I have reported them to VOSA & awaiting their response & am also now contacting SOGA in order to obtain further advice.

 

Is there anything else I can do?

 

Details of the MOT that passed the vehicle are below and are taken from the government website facility to check vehicle MOT history…. Details regarding the vehicle & the MOT station have been removed at this stage due to potential legal reasons.

 

 

Date of test:

 

27/07/2012

 

Certificate issue refused (Fail)

 

Test class:

 

IV

 

Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate

 

Offside Rear Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.1.E.1)

 

Nearside Front Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover insecure so that itno longer prevents the ingress of dirt (2.4.G.2)

 

Front brakes imbalanced (3.7.A.2d)

 

Advisory Notice issued

 

Front Brake pad(s) wearing thin (3.5.1g)

 

Offside Rear Shock absorber has a light misting of oil (2.7.3)

 

Front brake discs slightly worn

 

Movement in n/s front strut top when raised

 

 

 

Date of test:

 

27/07/2012

 

Certificate issued (Pass)

 

Test class:

 

IV

 

Test expiry date:

 

04/08/2013

 

Advisory Notice issued

 

Offside Rear Shock absorber has a light misting of oil (2.7.3)

 

Front brake discs slightly worn

 

Movement in n/s front strut top when raised

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the replies & links given so far, appreciate all responses.

 

I have since contacted the dealer several times today & have been told the Owner will not be responding to me & all staff have been told NOT to speak to me regarding this issue and the owners response was & I quote is "he doesn't give a **** if you take legal proceedings & we hope you take it to the press cos we could do with more free publicity & sales.... goodluck sweetheart" !!!!!.

 

Having asked many times I've been given 3 different owners name, all of whom cannot be traced on any Google search. Some staff state they do NOT know who the owner or indeed their boss is.... What an idiot Ive been & believe it or not I'm actually a very savvy business woman.... Never again Will I make this mistake ;)

 

I have since sent a very professional, factual & legislative email giving them the opportunity to rectify the problem prior to taking legal action but I wont hold my breath. The MOT Company still wont take my calls either. If both Companies are legitimate then there would be no need to avoid my calls nor state the above ridiculous comments..... Refussing to take my calls stinks & I think they may now be a little worried. This was never a witch hunt nor is it but I'm now even more determined to bring these individuals to justice and ensure that nobody else has to encounter such horrific treatment in the future!

 

If I win & at least receive most if not all of the money I paid for this defective vehicle then it's a double win all round. If not, I will accept I've been naive, 'had over' and most certainly continue to ensure that nobody else purchases a defective vehicle from this outlet.

 

There will only be one real looser & I have already commenced legal searches & advisory opinions based on the strong documentary evidence I have both against the dealer & MOT provider.... it doesnt look good for them & although it's going to be somwhat time consumming for me nobody should have to suffer this kind of operation & if all I achieve is preventing this from happening to someone else then I'll be really happy :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...