Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
    • I would say You should accept it - I HIGHLY doubt you will  be able to claim for letters at trial ans they’re offering you that, which is higher monetary value than interest.   Also they raise a good point, getting interest at anything above 4% is lucky these days, yes judges give it, but rarily above 4%   Also you might find depending on the judge  you don’t get some costs if you take it all the way over £7.40 when court woukdnt award letters costs and thus meaning their award would be less than evris offer which was made    Up to you though but the wait will be 3-4mo for a trial date at least
    • Hi Folks, Been 162 days! Just by way of update. Today I received a text from Opos Ltd so no doubt Capquest are renting the debt out to anybody who fancies a nibble. Safe to say I will not be responding.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

engine failed within 24 hours.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4198 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

Hello,

 

i bought a car on 21st august from Honda garage in Norwich. i drove from there to scotland and covered 600 miles. in the morning i started the car and engine was making knocking noises. car went to local honda dealer and told me that the engine has failed. Honda uk investigated by stripping the engine and came to the conclusion that due to lack of oil the engine had failed. The car was taken to the selling dealer by honda uk. they have taken liability. Now my concern is that they might fix the existing engine but personally would like a new engine as it may comprise reliability in the future. Now i was wondering what rights i have to return the car and get a refund?

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about the slow reply asma91.

 

Unless the car is new, you wouldn't be entitled to a new engine, that would be betterment. You would be entitled to a used engine, but you never know how they have been treated and can't be sure the mileage is the same as that written in correcting fluid on it.

 

Depending on what they intend to do and what the actual problem is, if it's the crankshaft and bearing shells that are the problem, then a regrind and a new set of shells would be a much better bet.

 

Do you want to go into more detail ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's gone the Honda UK then it will have a new engine Conniff. They won't re-build it. Thing is, it is highly unusual for any manufactuer to take a car back unless it is still within the manufatuers warranty

 

Ageand mileage would help here as to what is going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

the car is a honda s2000 and milage is 65000.

Well guys got an update from Holden Honda. They said they are not going to fix it as it should be done under Guarantee because they believe that an over speed has caused the engine to fail.

 

Well heres the story from the start...

 

Bought the car from Holden Honda n Norwich and drove 500-600 miles back home. got home parked up and everything was fine till in the morning when i tried starting the car. as soon as i started the car it was a loud knock and car never started. tried starting it again and started up fine but the engine was knocking slightly but got worse as i kept the car on. thats when i called the selling dealer explaining the situation to them. They were fine at the time and gave me the number to call AA to get it recovered to my nearest dealer which is Honda in Kirkcaldy. When the AA guy arrived the first thing he done was check the oil and oil was below minimum line and thats when he said that the engine knocking because of lack of oil but need investigated further and got a flat bed to recover the car to Honda in Kirkcaldy. This was the report i got off AA when the first cam out to check the car.

AA Report

 

Once the car was at Honda in Kirkcaldy. They discovered that there was an over speed recorded on the ECU. The recorded speed was 112mph at 9225 rpm. I drove 500 miles and i honestly can not remember or recall any moment where i have drove the car in manner of way that i would cause an over speed. I tried to get more information like what milage did the ECU record the over speed condition as that could have been on ECU before i bought the car and maybe that never caused the engine to fail. so then Kirkcaldy Honda told me to deal with selling dealer as extended warranty will not cover that as there is an over speed recorded on the ECU.

 

Here is the Over speed Print out

Over speed print out

 

I tried calling Holden Honda several times and they would always say that they going to call me back but never did and thats when i manage to find out a contact number for Phil Dix (customer Relation HUK) his response was that he will get the car taken to Glasgow Honda and investigate further. Once the car arrived at Glasgow Honda they then stripped the engine and then they heard back from Honda that they have rejected the warranty claim. the conclusion Honda Glasgow came to was that the car was driven low on oil and there is no mechanical failure of any of the major components. the number 4 cylinder con rod shells have been damaged, the crankshaft and cylinder head has also suffer some damage. HUK believe this has been cause because the car was driven low on oil.

 

 

So on the basis of the over speed print out Holden Honda have rejected to fix the car at this time.

 

i have been to seen a solicitor and he has wrote a letter to Holden Honda requesting refund.

 

will update as they follow.

 

 

Also forgot to mention

 

The General Manager at Holden Honda gave me three option

1. to try and claim off honda warranty again ( the warranty have made the decision to reject the claim which i have been told by RIchard who was dealing with the case on behalf of Phil Dix)

 

2. Claim of my own motor insurance

 

3. pay for repair cost

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just say, I'm not completely tech'd up on this... But if an engine "Fails", it can cause all sorts of random readings.

 

Fifth Gear purposely ran a Proton Wira out of oil and drove it for a few miles and the last thing it did before seizing up was send the rev counter off the chart. I'd say something similar could have happened here if something has become unlubricated, it could have caused the errattic reading on the ECU of the engine speed.

 

Search "Fifth Gear Oil" on youtube to see the original footage. 9225RPM at 113mph would have to include you removing the rev limiter and taking up to that speed in third gear or something like that...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite an interesting case for me.

 

On a modern engine driven low on oil the revs will increase as the engine tries to compensate for the increased load placed on it, i.e. as it starts to seize it increases in speed to prevent it from stalling.

 

No.4 conrod will stretch first as the seizure would probably have occured on the journal furthest away from the oil pump feed. This stretching would cause damage to the head as the clearances now are extremely fine between the top of the piston and the valves. The head is probably recoverable but the bottom end will be a write off.

 

Honda UK's response could be a double edge sword though.

 

If Holden can prove that the oil level was correct then HUK would have to explain why it burnt a sump of oil in 500 miles on an engine with 65,000 miles on it. Given that all data such as this is fed back to Japan or European head quarters they will have a vast amount to analyse the risk of fail.

 

The reality is that Holden have dropped a clanger and probably let the car go with insufficient oil in it. Again HUK could argue and probably prove this was the case from data.

 

At the end of the day, even with a new car, your problem is with the sellar of the car. As the car has done 65K with no issues as such in it's previous life (as HUK will know about anything) the chances of it being a manufacturing defect are virtually nill. Therefore in all probability it was handed over to you with insufficient oil.

 

Reject the car formally and tell them to go and get it. They will have to either do this or authorise Honda Glasgow to repair. You should trust HUK as they will be useful in sorting this out and can force the issue with Holden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for all your help.

 

When i was speaking to Richard from the customer relation team. He was saying that after HUK investigation they came to the conclusion that the engine has failed due to lack of oil and they are happy to provide all the information needed. Also the car was sold as Honda approved so how would this 30 day used car exchange policy?

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a silly question but did the OP check engine oil and water levels before setting out for Scotland.?

We always recommended that on uplifting a vehicle from a sales or service outfit, the driver should carry out basic checks before driving off in vehicle---it was a bad experience that made us start these checks.

Had this been a commercial vehicle, the selling agent and manufacturer would have stated that it's the drivers responsibility to check levels before starting engine.

Edited by scaniaman
dippit
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for all your help.

 

When i was speaking to Richard from the customer relation team. He was saying that after HUK investigation they came to the conclusion that the engine has failed due to lack of oil and they are happy to provide all the information needed. Also the car was sold as Honda approved so how would this 30 day used car exchange policy?

 

thanks

 

My argument would be that if the vehicle was sold as "Fit for purpose", it would have protective fluids in it with the capability of lasting out the first few days of ownership.

 

If I've ever sold a shed (Adequately described to the purchaser), I've always checked for coolant, oil and brake fluid, so I know they've got a good chance of getting it home with no issues.

 

If they'd sold it to you with no coolant in, which may not have been apparant until it'd seized up, I'm sure they'd be taking a different stance.

 

Engine oil is always a funny bugger of a subject, but if it was sold as fit for purpose and their checks had been conducted properly, there'd have been no oil leaks or oil burn when it was inspected. Ergo, it shouldn't have lost any.

 

Just as another note, the oil consumption in my 89 Cavalier (From the manual) is apparently 0.005ltr per 1000 miles. This was when the car was new. Now, I put a pint or so in a month (1500 miles a month) which after 23 years, I don't think is excessive. They should provide a reason why it used 1000 times more oil than it should have done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HUK is spot on with the stance they are taking. As previously pointed out the OP should be asking for assistance from them in holding Holden Honda Norwich to account which they can do in this case.

 

If the car is subject to an official used car sale then the oil level should have been correct. If Holden say it was then how do HUK explain the use of a sump full of oil in 500 miles?

 

If I was OP then I'd officially reject against Holden and ask HUK to support with either finding another car or fitting a full new engine and charging Holden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand its past 30 days now but the car was broken down within 24 hours and was taken to a honda garage straight after and the reason why its taken this long because of honda uk trying to rectify the problem and investigate what has caused this so since the problem can not be rectified so i should be able to take advantage of this offer?

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...