Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi. Could you post up what they've sent please so we can see what the charge is? Cover up your name and address and their reference number. HB
    • I've looked through all our old NPE threads, and as far as we know they have never had the bottle to do court. There are no guarantees of course, but when it comes to put or shut up they definitely tend towards shut up. How about something like -   Dear Jonathan and Julie, Re: PCN no.XXXXX cheers for your Letter Before Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea that you actually expected me to take this tripe seriously and cough up. I'll write to you not some uninterested third party, thanks all the same, because you have are the ones trying to threaten me about this non-existent "debt". Go and look up Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd, saddos.  Oh, while you're at it, go and look up your Subject Access Request obligations - we all know how you ballsed that up way back in January to March. Dear, dear, dear - you couldn't resist adding your £70 Unicorn Food Tax, you greedy gets.  Judges don't like these made-up charges, do they? You can either drop this foolishness now or get a hell of a hammering in court.  Both are fine with me.  Summer is coming up and I would love a holiday at your expense after claiming an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g). I look forward to your deafening silence.   That should show them you're not afraid of them and draw their attention to their having legal problems of their own with the SAR.  If they have any sense they'll crawl back under their stone and leave you in peace.  Over the next couple of days invest in a 2nd class stamp (all they are worth) and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.
    • Yes that looks fine. It is to the point. I think somewhere in the that the you might want to point out that your parcel had been delivered but clearly had been opened and resealed and the contents had been stolen
    • Hi All, I just got in from work and received a letter dated 24 April 2024. "We've sent you a Single Justice Procedure notice because you have been charged with an offence, on the Transport for London Network." "You need to tell us whether you are guilty or not guilty. This is called making your plea."
    • Okay please go through the disclosure very carefully. I suggest that you use the technique broadly in line with the advice we give on preparing your court bundle. You want to know what is there – but also very importantly you want to know what is not there. For instance, the email that they said they sent you before responding to the SAR – did you see that? Is there any trace of of the phone call that you made to the woman who didn't know anything about SAR's? On what basis was the £50 sent to you? Was it unilateral or did they offer it and you accepted it on some condition? When did they send you this £50 cheque? Have you banked it? Also, I think that we need to start understanding what you have lost here. Have you lost any money – and if so how much? Send the SAR to your bank as advised above
  • 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

ATS Euromaster


Yukiko
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4191 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 guys, I need some help with these cowboys.

 

I bought two new tyres from ATS around June at around £51 each. I was informed that these are ATS' own brand, made by Michelin (Riken Maystorm2) and were ideal for my vehicle.

 

I originally went in for dunlops, but I digress!

 

Within two-three weeks and 1000 miles later, there was a lot of wheel wobble and the tread started peeling from the NS front tyre. I went to ATS and asked them to check. They said that my steering rack required replacement and that my rear wheel bearings were dangerous.

 

I then took the vehicle back to Vauxhall, who kindly did a vehicle health check and nothing suspicious was found (My car has taper bearings on the rear apparently which do give some movement which is acceptable).

 

I then sent a few snotty e-mails and a template complaints letter, offering to pay for 10% of a new tyre (Which came to £5) as I really wasn't happy. They agreed and I had a new NSF tyre, all happy and dandy.

 

Today, I took my car into an independant tyre garage as the probem has got very bad again and they've informed me that both front tyres are mis-shaped and dangerous. I rang ATS Customer Relations and they've said that I must buy two new tyres and return these ones for inspection as I could have been running up and down curbs and so on. I pointed out that I don't have the funds to do it, to which I recieved the following response;

 

"The tyre industry has its own set of rules and regulations in relation to warranty/guarantee. The sale of goods act is no good for these situations as in nearly all cases, tyres go faulty because of user error. You'll either have to remove the wheels and use alternatives or purchase new tyres"

 

I'm sure this isn't right, my car is in perfect health and gets truly pampered at every oppurtunity by main dealers, only going to independants or ATS for tyres and exhausts. How can they say I've mistreated the car when I take such a stand on keeping it in order?

 

Can any body help?

 

Regards,

 

Yukiko

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are actually right and wrong with this.

They are right in respect of the warranty procedure however this does not exhonerate them from the sale of goods act. Unfortunately you have to go through the warranty procedure first.

 

As regards to what the Vauxhall garage has told you I can categoricaly state that it is not acceptable to have any movement in a wheel bearing assembly whether tapered or not and it is very, very unlikely you have tapered bearings on the front wheels.

 

You should note that wheel bearing play can also cause a tyre to go egg shaped.

 

Due to the nature of tyres, the supplier investigation reports are very succint and detailed so if you do send them off for inspection and the report comes back as negative i.e. no fault found with the construction of the tyre then you can be pretty sure it is accurate and another fault with the car which I have pointed out. If there is an issue with them then they will agree to replace and instruct accordingly. However they will ask for a percentage contribution which is usually based on the amount of tread left pro rata.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As regards to what the Vauxhall garage has told you I can categoricaly state that it is not acceptable to have any movement in a wheel bearing assembly whether tapered or not and it is very, very unlikely you have tapered bearings on the front wheels.

 

You should note that wheel bearing play can also cause a tyre to go egg shaped.

 

 

The rear bearings are taper bearings. These are the ones that they're complaining about, saying that the rear bearings and my [excessively worn] steering rack are causing the issue. I trust anything Vauxhall say over ATS right now as Vauxhall seem to be fairer at pricing things than ATS and will do anything to keep my car coming back as a long term returning customer, not just a sales figure for that specific, slow-trade day!

 

If there is an issue with them then they will agree to replace and instruct accordingly. However they will ask for a percentage contribution which is usually based on the amount of tread left pro rata.

 

This is what happened last time. There was no inspection though, I think the fact that the tread was literally peeling off of the NSF tyre was reason enough to actually listen to one of their customers who knows his car and how it feels.

 

I don't want the earth moved, but I feel that a hefty discount off of my Third set of tyres from ATS in 12 months should be offered, especially as they've fobbed me off with an badly worn steering rack, worn Track Rod Ends, rear taper bearings should never have play in them, trackings out etc... All things my local dealer have said don't actually exist on my car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what you have posted, I would not believe any Vauxhall garage either. I would reitterate that it is not acceptable for any play to be in any wheel bearing weather tapered or not.

If indeed your post relates to the fronts only then you should state this.Exactly what are you complaining about? Two front tyres it seems. You do not confirm either if you have had the work done to rectify the issues ATS have raised.

 

Given that Vauxhall have said that play is allowable I wouldn't even be going anywhere near the garage which sort of negates any answer they have to the issue.

 

It could be that ATS are right and Vauxhall are wrong. Would not be the first time.

 

You need to be more succint in your problem description as to where the tyres were fitted, front or back.

 

With regards the peeling issue, were they the same tyre etc etc.

 

Your post is turning into something a bit vauge at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do apologise for the vagueness... I'm on my 6th nightshift in a row :)

 

The front tyres were replaced by ATS and replace again by ATS when the tread started peeling. These were [Michelin] Riken Maystorm 2 tyres. (ATS' own brand, produced by Michelin).

 

The general consensus amongst Cavalier owners on forums and so on is that the minor amount of play (And it is minor) is acceptable, requiring a nip'up of the bearings if it becomes more than minor.

 

I understand that there is a lot of negativity regarding main dealers, but the dealer I use do a hell of a lot of good work for me and I regularly point other Vauxhall owners in their direction for any work.

 

Vauxhall do a VHC (Vehicle Health Check) every time the car goes in for repairs. The VHC prior to my new tyres was all green (Minus an oil leak and a reverse bulb out) and the VHC they did for me free of charge upon my request was all green - No issues - I had sorted the oil leak and changed the bulb.

 

There are no issues with my cars steering or suspension, unless you wanted to be very regimental and nip up the little play there is in the rear bearings, but I really do not agree that the slightest play in the rear would cause tread to peel off and tyres to bulge out.

 

More like ATS hiding behind a big brand to sell their chod to the unsuspecting public as "Michelin" tyres.

 

That's just my view, but if you need any more info, please advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are talking about the front tyres only.

 

I will say again that it is not acceptable for any play to be in any wheel bearings be it front or rear and either taper or not.

 

The issue with the peeling tyres seems to have been resolved so what now is the current issue? Vibration? Quoting what has gone on before and been fixed muddies the water so to speak.

 

What is the current issue you have in a nutshell leaving out previous issues?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tread on these tyres isn't peeling, but is wearing unevenly and there is vibration.

 

A company called Tread Fast (I think) in Saffron Walden, told me that the tyres are mishapen when I took it in to be looked at, thinking I'd thrown a weight or something. They said both front tyres have gone out of shape AFTER I told them that the tyres are under warrenty (I was up front, so they knew I wouldn't be shoe-horned into buying new ones from them).

 

They gave me the slip of paper explaining that they're mis-shapen.

 

So, my issue now, with the 3rd set is mishapen tyres.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first replacement was after 1000 miles.

 

This issue is now 7000 miles down the line.

 

I'm going to stick my winter wheels and tyres on soon to avoid damaging my alloys and to enable me to return the two tyres to ATS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might actually be better off sending the complete wheels. Make sure you photgraph first and get a receipt from ATS. This is a standard procedure and if the tyre manufactuer has the wheel as well all the better. The investigation is always very thorough. I'd also ask for an 8D report as to normal. It will be routine but a bid odd from a retail customer and will give them something to think about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would there be charge for sending 4 x alloys back?

 

The other thing they crowed on about for about 30 seconds is that my car is an "L" spec model (Boggo standard, Ex-Police) and it's wearing Astra CDX alloys (15", same offset and PCD stud pattern).

 

I told them that 4 stud Vauxhall wheels will suit most others and that Cavalier was available with up to 16" on top spec models, so it was irrelevant.

 

Just want to make sure they don't have much defence.

 

:)

 

8D, I guess this is an industry standard report, not the usual rubbish us normal people get fobbed off with?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There should not be a charge for returning any tyres under investigation. ATS should take care of this. However you need to ask ATS to ask the supplier if they would like the wheels as well. If not then get ATS to remove and send back thetyres under complaint. Ask ATS to fill in the complaint form ideally with you. They might object but it does indeed help the supplier/manufactuer believe it or not. If the ATS branch has done everything they can then there should not be a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heliosuk. Given your post 6 can you please advise me how to tighten up wheel bearings. I know that some makes and in particular Nissan, the rear wheel bearings have to be tightened right up as there is an internal spacer which is SUPPOSED to automatically set the bearing correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I see what you are saying so perhaps then a re phrase to "no discernable movement in an X,Y or Z axis and a resistance to movement no less than X newtons/metre and no more than X newtons/metre at a piece temperature of 22 degrees centigrade and where the bearing can confirmed to be lubricated with a lubricant that comples with SAE XXX and that the applied force in any axis does not exceed XXX Kn" would be more appropriate.

 

Hope that clarifies the statement :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...