Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK thank you very much. I will prepare my WS as you advise.  I will indeed be preparing the WS over the weekend. I will also post UKPC's on Wednesday by 2nd class mail. As they have until the 17th to pay the court fee, is it possible they might discontinue at that stage too? Also I wanted to ask, in what form should the site manager's statement come? And the site owner if i can contact them? I will get photos of the signage to share with you also. Thank you.
    • Theres speculation on whether the magazine was Womens Weekly or Boys own 😀   ... probably a classic first edition of boys own - based on it costing $130k :lol  
    • You have five days yet to respect the WS deadline which is next Wednesday.  As others have said,  you can e-mail the court their copy.  That gives you the whole weekend to get the WS prepared.  Personally I'd post UKPC's theirs by 2nd class post (all they are worth) on Wednesday too, the court won't look badly on a short delay from a Litigant-in-Person. Another point.  In your WS you say their signs are rubbish.  That's a great point if their signs really are rubbish.  It's a dreadful point if their signs are fine.  So have you got photos of their signs?
    • You need to start drafting your WS.  I would suggest as sections - Sequence of Events - a brief description of how you came to get the invoice. Permission from Landowner - self-explanatory.  You will have to include this as it is in your defence.  However, be aware that your argument is very weak and indeed harms your case.  A person with no connection to the car park said you could park there - that is no different from saying that someone you met in the local pub said you could park there.  Anyway, get the site manager's WS.  Obviously this weak point could morph into a winner if you could get a WS from the landowner. Prohibition - you have this virtually word for word in the other WS. No locus standi - UKPC are not the landlord, they only administer the car park, they have no right to sue you (however the fact you never asked by CPR to see their contract with the landowner makes this a very weak point too). Double Recovery - again in the other WS.
    • And don't be worrying too much about being a day or two late with your WS. As a litigant in person, you'll be given a little leeway. Take time to post up your WS here  for the team to take a look. It'll give time to get your site manager's statement as an exhibit. Also, I understand you haven't got their WS yet? It could give you time to see theirs first if they send it. Do they have your email address? If so they could play dirty and send it the night before the hearing!
  • 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

Bought a used car from a dealer and told them within 24 hours that I want my money back


ElmoFireUp
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4179 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

Sounds like they have updated the software on the vehicle's ECU (Engine Control Unit) which has fixed some bugs. Its common for manufacturers to do this and can help with the cars performance / economy.

 

Source: I used to work for VW Customer Services

Twitter - @memgrubb

--

If my post helped - please click the star icon below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To your knowledge would a software problem make a cars 0 to 60mph time drop from 9.5 seconds to 21 seconds?

 

Would a software upgrade fix this problem?

 

I'm no mechanic but as far as I am aware the ECU controls pretty much everything to do with a modern cars engine such as throttle speed / response, braking pressure etc. The ECU can also put a car into 'limp home mode".

 

It doesn't sound like this has happened on this occasion but a software update may have been the fix for the problem.

 

If you are still unsure you can request a copy of the diagnostic report from the garage and take it elsewhere for an independent opinion. There probably will be a charge for this.

Twitter - @memgrubb

--

If my post helped - please click the star icon below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To your knowledge would a software problem make a cars 0 to 60mph time drop from 9.5 seconds to 21 seconds?

 

Would a software upgrade fix this problem?

We had a similar problem with our vehicle and a software update cured it. neither a mechanic or a auto electrician would be able to do this and the vehicle would need to go to a franchise dealer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heliosuk, you are right about the garage / auto-electrician not being experts in this case. Given the symptoms described here i would have firstly tried a fuel expert such as a main Bosch agent as the slugishness could have been caused by partial fuel starvation. I'm like you--check out the simple things first, in this case probably air and fuel filters etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All fixed. It has had the latest software update so they tell me. Collected the car today and it runs smooth as silk. Iv'e looked into the whole saga with my solicitor and he says the fact that I originally asked them to fix the problem as soon as I found out about it is all they needed to refuse a refund and carry out the repair. It does not matter that I retracted my request within 5 minutes because as far as the course of events goes I asked for a repair first. At least I know my rights now for future reference so I don't run into the same issue again.

 

Not to fussed as I always liked the car and now it's working tip top I'm happy.

 

Got another problem now though that I have just noticed. The only window I can open from the drivers door is the drivers door window. All the other windows do open but not from the drivers door like they are meant to. Oh well not a big problem and I certainly am not going to take back to the dealer for fixing!

 

Thanks for all your input guys!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP should be watching the use of the car. The software update was perhaps actually a forced regeneration of the DPF.

 

OP should monitor oil level weekly as stated in the handbook and make sure it gets a good blast every now and again if its use is predominantly around town. If on Motorways will probaly not be an issue. Towns kill DPF's unfortunately.

 

A software update would probably change the regen parameters of a DPF which is whatI believe might have happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP should be watching the use of the car. The software update was perhaps actually a forced regeneration of the DPF.

 

OP should monitor oil level weekly as stated in the handbook and make sure it gets a good blast every now and again if its use is predominantly around town. If on Motorways will probaly not be an issue. Towns kill DPF's unfortunately.

 

A software update would probably change the regen parameters of a DPF which is whatI believe might have happened.

 

Got no idea what this means. I understand the checking of oil levels which I will certainly do on a weekly basis now you have pointed it out but don't know what you mean with the rest!

Link to post
Share on other sites

All fixed. It has had the latest software update so they tell me. Collected the car today and it runs smooth as silk. Iv'e looked into the whole saga with my solicitor and he says the fact that I originally asked them to fix the problem as soon as I found out about it is all they needed to refuse a refund and carry out the repair. It does not matter that I retracted my request within 5 minutes because as far as the course of events goes I asked for a repair first. At least I know my rights now for future reference so I don't run into the same issue again.

 

Not to fussed as I always liked the car and now it's working tip top I'm happy.

 

Got another problem now though that I have just noticed. The only window I can open from the drivers door is the drivers door window. All the other windows do open but not from the drivers door like they are meant to. Oh well not a big problem and I certainly am not going to take back to the dealer for fixing!

 

Thanks for all your input guys!

Sometimes when they load the new software, it can cause other issues which are easily overcome. Some operations are re-set to a default operation. Are you sure you have not accidentally clicked the "lock" for the other windows?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a bit late this post......A consumer's primary remedy under SOGA is to reject the goods and claim damages. This has always been there and until around 2002 this was the only remedy. This remedy of rejection was added to by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations and consumers could now ask for a repair, replacement, partial rejection (some money off) and it was up to the trader to pick the most economically viable solution (consumers couldn't force a replacement if a repair was more cost effective for example). This new set of remedies run seperately from the the primary one of rejection and using one set wouldn't preclude you from using the other. You could explore a repair or replacement and if that wasn't successful you could then reject (assuming certian conditions were met around acceptance of the goods - I'll not go into that here).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...