Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi BankFodder   Many thanks for your assistance in this matter.   I have decided to commence County Court action against DPD/Parcel2go regarding the lost parcel.   I would just like you to clarify whether which company you recommend me to commence legal proceedings against:   Parcel2go. My contract was made via this company.   Or DPD - This company undertook the contract and are the ones who lost the parcel.   I look forward to hearing from you soon.   Kind Regards Humza
    • I lost my job this jan because work decided not to extend my probabation, so i've been out of work since then. During this time I have made 3 payments of £270 from my own savings and now I am really struggling.   I rang motonova last month before COVID19 started and explained I lost my job and wanted a reduction in the payment but they asked me what my out goings were and told me 'it looks you can make this months payment so we can't do anything etc'   Since COVID19 has started motonova now have this form available to ask for reduction of payments - see https://customer.motonovofinance.com/file/cms/raw/888dda418afb548c00a1afc1cde50704.pdf   Given my weak financial situation can anyone help me with what I put down for these sections of the form so my request to lower or freeze payments stands a good chance of being accepted   1. Is your situation realated to the Coronavirus outbreak? Yes   2. Do you consider yourself to be in a high risk group, if so why?Do you explicitly consent to us recording this information in your account notes? I am no longer employed and have no income coming in. Work have made cuts due to Corona and no longer employed by them I am sorry I wont be able to make payments of £270   3. How much can you pay? I can pay £25 a month   4. What are you proposing, and what help would you like from us? I've lost my job and have no income. I've had to self isolate under the goverment guidelines with my family because my daughter had a cough at school. I've been applying for numerous jobs and have no luck and the COVID19 situation in the country has made the whole situation even worse for me. I request given the financial difficulty I am in that  you please accept my offer   What do you think of my reasons and how can you add or improve them? I really stressed out because my next payment is coming up in 3 weeks and I'm down to my last £400 of my savings and I've no idea how long it will take me to find a job  
    • Hi All   As im new to this site and here for as much advise as possible to help me and a few fellow work colleges regarding a situation with our employer given the current circumstances with the COVID-19 (coronavirus).   Basically since i started working for said company i have never been given my contract or employer handbook to view as when i need to, its always stored inside our boss's office and past staff have been refused to view it when they have wanted to, what i want to know is, is it a legal requirement for a employer to give there employees a copy of there contract/ handbook or is there a clause that can allow him not to?   Also i have currently been in self isolation due to cornavirus and have spoken to our company via email with no reply from them but have heard from colleagues that the work has slowed down, and in the recent email i have sent i spoke about potentially being put on 'furlough pay' if work stops completely. Can he refuse to put certain staff on it and still keep the business open even though there is no work? As well as not providing sufficient hygiene sources given the current climate, would that put him in breach of contract (if could view mine to start off with) ?   At the minute we are stuck in limbo given we are still off in self isolation for another week and he doesn't really care about his staff, what would be the best course to take regarding the matters above??   HELP!    
    • I have been trying to get onto the MCOL site for several days now, it keeps saying that the password is wrong and i haven't been able to get to talk to someone on the phone, i have prepared a defense and its ready to email, just realised today is day 33.   Here it is for your considderation, thank you.   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1.Paragraph 1 is noted; I have in the past had financial dealings with MBNA. I am unaware of the alleged agreement the Claimant refers to having failed to adequately particularise its claim and have therefore sought clarity from the Claimant by way of a Section 78 request and a CPR 31.14 request.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of any service of a Default Notice (s) pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by the original creditor MBNA. I have sought verification from the claimant regarding this matter and they have been unable to comply.   3. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and (c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   4. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request, copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   6. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2608 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Dear all. Great to have found this forum. Im really hoping I can find some sort of direction.

 

My problem has been on going for about 4 months now, almost from day one of purchasing the car. Its a Toyota Celica 2006 model.

 

To cut a very long story short here ..... the car was purchased, knowingly by me, with non standard alloys.

 

However, from day one I noticed issues with handling.

 

This was reported several times to the garage.

 

After the first recall I was told that there was nothing wrong but also that a 4 wheel alignment check had been done.

This turned out to be untrue.

I did not receive any paperwork clarifying this.

 

On the second recall I was told the car was ok still, but a (another) 4 wheel alignment check had been done and found some adjustment was needed,

proven with the steering wheel now pointing straight.

I can only assume that the first time it was not done as they indicated.

 

Problem still there .

 

.. basically the car feels unstable when at speeds above 50mph and tends to wander and jump depending on road conditions.

Having done my own investigations,

Ive since learned that the tyres are over stretched on the wheels which are in turn not the correct size for the car.

 

The tyres are the original and true size stretched over wheels 30mm wider than standard.

 

When I reported this to the garage they told me that the car was safe and that "their" tyre centre said the tyres fitted (205s) would be what they would fit on these wheels (8J).

 

This must be untrue as I have since been to this tyre centre and they have told me that they would not fit this size tyre to that wheel and put this in writing.

 

I have since learned that should the correct tyre size be fitted to this wheel (235s) then it would clash with the bodywork in certain conditions.

Therefore I take it this makes the car unsafe.

 

The garage concerned are not accepting responsibility for this whatsoever,

even though clearly they have been lying and avoiding communication from both myself and the finance company who "own" the car.

 

What I could do with knowing is am I in the right here.

 

Yes, I accept I knew the wheels were non standard, but is it my responsibility to check they are correct for the car?

 

Surely this is the garage's responsibility to ensure that the wheels

(and car are fit for the purpose it was sold for and therefore if the wheels are too big than the manufacturer recommend would that not be their call?

 

Or is this my call simply because I new the wheels where non standard.

 

The tyres are too narrow for the wheel so there is not enough grip on the road, therefore making it unstable.

 

Any advice would be very much appreciated. Im about to go to Trading Standards on this, but if anyone here knows anything then please do advise.

 

Thank you

 

Martin (Oxford)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic question is 'would the car pass an MOT test as it is?'

 

I'm afraid to say that if it does / would then I doubt there's much you can do.

 

Toyota spend millions on making sure that the wheels and tyres they fit to new cars are configured so that the best handling / braking / ride compromise is achieved.

 

Then someone comes along thinking it will look better with some nice big alloys on it.

 

Which it does but handles like a drunk camel on roller skates.

 

It it will pass an MOT (which is the stance you'll probably get from the seller) then a government agency has declared the car safe to use on the road.

 

Which means there's very little you can do I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take it a vosa/council test site for a check and see what they say.

yes tyres should be in the correct range for a certain width wheel.

most tyre manufaturers say 225/235 for an 8j, however 205 is permissable.

the thing is manufactueres do a lot of testing to get the handling right, suspension set up, with a certain wheel/tyre size and as yiou asy somebody puts larger diameter wheels and bigger tyres, which can make it handle and ride differently.

The basic thing to check is that the rolling radius has not changed dramatically ( within about 2-3% is normal ) otherwisw that upsets the gearing as well.

so what you need to check is that rolling radius of the original wheel diameter and tyre profile ( munfacturer supplied ) does not differ much from what you actually have on the car now.

plenty of check guides on the web to check when you know the sizes.

From what you describe its called tramlining, but usaually happens with large wheels and very low profile tyres. ( 35 or 40 profile ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would worry me about these tyres is that if you have an accident would insurance company pay out---also do they know that car is fitted with non standard wheels / tyres?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder where SOGA fits into this.

 

not fit for purpose.

 

certainly any insurance co. would not cough as its an un-notified modification.

 

agree with the suggestion to take it to a vosa/council MOT centre.

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The insurance aspect has been a massive issue in all this. Consequently I have taken the car of the road. I will give them a call this morning to chat about this issue. Even if legally the tyres are permissible 205s are not recommended through the continental tyres guidelines for 8j wheels.

The car drives fine up to about 50mph but after that if the road is uneven it handles like a boat and when braking becomes quite concerning.

 

Quite simply there isn't enough grip on the roads to support that width of wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the insurance is a totally different question from whether you can get any money back from the seller.

 

if the car will pass an mot, then the seller will quite rightly say that they sold you a car that is safe an legal... and it is, because an independent mot test says so... the fact that the tyres are too wide etc probably won't affect the mot.

 

so your sole remedy is to put the correct size wheels and tyres on it and pay for that yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with DX here. OP is running around un-necessary circles. Car must be supplied fit for the purpose and of satisfactory quality. OP should get the thing interdependently checked (pref by VOSA) and if it is established wheels are incorrect, then get the seller to rectify.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the whole point is being missed here. The OP says the garage are not accepting responsibility.

 

Indeed for what?

 

Their stance will be (when contacted) that the car will pass an MOT test and is therefore safe and sound to be on the road.

 

The fact that the alloys / tyres are non standard (which the OP states he was aware of before buying) will most likely not affect an MOT test result, as long as the tyres have adequate tread and thee is no excess ply ni the suspension and steering then it will pass.

 

The seller can rightly claim that a government agency has declared the car fit to be on the road.

 

This is NOT the seller's fault, it's the fault of whatever idiot decided they knew better than toyota about which tyres and wheels suited the car best.

 

I dont tihnk this is a problem that the seller will or should fix, it is NOT the seller's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if legally the tyres are permissible 205s are not recommended through the continental tyres guidelines for 8j wheels.

The car drives fine up to about 50mph but after that if the road is uneven it handles like a boat and when braking becomes quite concerning.

 

Quite simply there isn't enough grip on the roads to support that width of wheel.

 

I doubt anyone outside endurance racing would be able to absolutely confirm the change of running characteristics of a car at 50mph on a normal road is down to a 225 tyre exchange to a 205.

 

Am I right in thinking the wheel diameter has been altered from standard ? (hence the earlier comment about '225 tyres hitting the bodywork ?')

 

If so then you could always put them on eBay. There will always be some idiot that thinks they are the way to go and can only enhance the cars value. They might even do a swop for the standards with cash your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No the whole point is being missed here. The OP says the garage are not accepting responsibility.

 

Indeed for what?

 

Their stance will be (when contacted) that the car will pass an MOT test and is therefore safe and sound to be on the road.

 

The fact that the alloys / tyres are non standard (which the OP states he was aware of before buying) will most likely not affect an MOT test result, as long as the tyres have adequate tread and thee is no excess ply ni the suspension and steering then it will pass.

 

The seller can rightly claim that a government agency has declared the car fit to be on the road.

 

This is NOT the seller's fault, it's the fault of whatever idiot decided they knew better than toyota about which tyres and wheels suited the car best.

 

I dont tihnk this is a problem that the seller will or should fix, it is NOT the seller's fault.

 

Yes but will it? Just because the OP was aware that the car had non-standard alloy wheels does not mean he has accepted the car with wheels which are a potential MOT failure. The seller is responsible should the wheels/tyres deem to be totally unsuitable to the extent that it would not pass an MOT.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they have sufficient tread and there is no excess play in the steering and suspension and they don't foul the bodywork then yes in all likelihood it will.

 

they may well make a note on the mot eg 'non standard tyres / weels fitted' but there is no actual 50 mph plus road test on an mot.

 

unless it fails on something else that is.

 

 

and if a mot station says it's a pass then its road legal and the seller will wash his hands of it.

 

and rightly so, no doubt a major selling point for the op were the swish looking alloys and low profile tyres when he viewed it.

 

tough.

 

he's best off ebaying them as suggested and buying some standard kit with the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

The only way to independantly verify if the tyres would pass an MOT would be as has been previously stated to take the vehicle to VOSA centre and get their independant opinion on whether it will pass an MOT as they are the ones that will probably take any concerns further from their side if anything verified and OP having an independantly verified report to hit the seller with so to speak to get this issue rectified by the seller at no cost to the OP if the seller co-operates that is.


How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....no doubt a major selling point for the op were the swish looking alloys and low profile tyres when he viewed it.

 

tough.

 

he's best off ebaying them as suggested and buying some standard kit with the money.

 

Hi. Thanks for the feedback (to all).

 

Hopefully I can clarify a few things.

 

Firstly, OddJobBob, you make some good valid points but also some incorrect assumptions. The swish looking alloys were not a selling point. Low profiles are standard on this car, as they are on most sports cars. I bought this car on the basis that its the last of the model and therefore had a few manufacturer options as standard (i.e. HD lights, leather interior and sunroof), looked in amazing condition, had very low mileage and a full Toyota service history. I was pleased it had different alloys for the sole reason that standard Celica wheels corrode very quickly. I accepted they were non standard when purchasing it.

 

The garage initially were very cooperative with my concerns about the handling. However, when you are told something has been checked over, then told its fine (but with no written proof) but the resulting drive proves nothing has changed, and then you return it back for a second checking and then you are told it needed some alighment adjustment and heres the written proof you start to wonder whats going on. I had immediate doubts whether anything had been done on the first check up. The car was sat in exactly the same position and stance as when I left it there. I was told the car had been valeted as standard. Then why was it dusty and showing muddy foot prints. Doubts start to enter your head about what you have purchased. Particularly when the handling is still the same. Dont get me wrong, its a lovely car but this is fast becoming personal now between me and the garage so Im having to step back a little and let the finance company deal with it so I dont lose perspective of what Im complaining about.

 

Its very possible that I cannot do anything. The MoT point is very valid of course but there is a clear handling issue with the current tyres on the replacement 8J wheels that is not comfortable for the car. From the garages point of view they are probably clear. The wheels either need wider tyres on it or the car needs a standard alloy set up put back on.

 

Normally this would not have been a problem for me but the handling is so poor at times that its dangerous, regardless of whether the MoT says what it says. Sometimes things are not so black and white, there are many areas in law where this line can be taken but it doesn't mean the situation is fine.

 

Putting a neutral head on this, and agreeing with OJB and many others here, the obvious thing to do is to sell the current wheels on ebay and put the funds towards a new correct set of wheels. This is probably what I will do. But for the next few days I will see what happens via the finance company. Unfortunately the issue has gathered momentum simply because of the relationship between me and the garage which has got more and more sour. There were other issues about the car that I felt were hidden from me at the point of sale and so therefore doubts have continually increased. Its not just the wheels.

 

So, there we go ... Im taking a step back. If the finance company can get an agreement with the garage to supply replacement wheels, then I will be happy to take them. If not, then I will let it go and treat it as an experience.

 

Thanks to OJB and others for your replies, much appreciated and helped me come to a conclusion here and looking at it from an alternative angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low profile wheels ?

 

That could be the reason it handles like a supermarket trolley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ping Pong

 

Fully accept all you say.

 

What I'm trying to say is that even if it handles like a drunk camel on roller skates, it it passes an MOT test then the garage's stance will not be ni your favour as they can claim they have sold you a safe car.

 

I wasn't trying to be difficult just pointing out that all the talk on here of SOGA, etc will in all likelihood get you nowhere.

 

The point here too is that you knew the alloys / tyres weren't standard which does weaken any case slightly.

 

TBQH I'd get them on ebay as soon as you can and put standard wheels on it.

 

Your call tho...!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good luck with that, hope they get it sorted.

have you checked the wheel/tyre size combination, that they are near the rolling radius they should be?

also what is the actual tyre size as fitted? aspect ratio.

could be other things I suppose, duff shock absorber!! that could lead to handling probs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Ping Pong

 

Fully accept all you say.

 

What I'm trying to say is that even if it handles like a drunk camel on roller skates, it it passes an MOT test then the garage's stance will not be ni your favour as they can claim they have sold you a safe car.

 

I wasn't trying to be difficult just pointing out that all the talk on here of SOGA, etc will in all likelihood get you nowhere.

 

The point here too is that you knew the alloys / tyres weren't standard which does weaken any case slightly.

 

TBQH I'd get them on ebay as soon as you can and put standard wheels on it.

 

Your call tho...!!

 

HI OddJobBob, dont worry, wasnt thinking you were being difficult. Have appreciated your input greatly, as I have other people too. I needed some input to my issue here to enable me to see things from a different angle, so honestly, you were fine. If everyone agreed with me then Im not going to get anywhere further than where I am now.

 

My argument with the garage is one of those areas which can be seen either way, apart from the shoddy after care, yes I knew the alloys were non standard but I did not know they were wider than the recommended size given for this car. I believe, and always have done, that they should have checked and advised me on this before selling it to me. They are a toyota franchise and therefore have guidelines to follow to keep to the manufacturers standards. Therefore the car they sold me did not meet up with those standards.

 

I may well be on a losing slant here, who knows, but I will give it a shot this week with the finance company and what they come up with. If its a struggle then I will leave it alone, get a set of standard alloys, sell the wide ones and then at the end of this probably sell the car anyway. Its surplus to requirements now and I really could do with this being settled. Its become a moral issue too as I dont want to sell it with these wheels on.

 

Raydetinu - The wheel size is 8J. The recommended tyre width are 235s. The tyres currently fitted are 205s. These are not illegal but are not recommended. In some countries they are illegal but for some strange reason over here they are not. Essentially, the tyres are overstretched and therefore it looks like the wheels are protruding out of the tyres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
could be other things I suppose, duff shock absorber!! that could lead to handling probs.

 

A duff absorber would show up in the MOT, as would almost all other defects leading to pig on rollersakete handling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more intersted in the aspect ratio and wheel size, as said ultra low progiles can lead to this tramlining effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does VOSA say it is roadworthy? As suggested ask them. If they say yes then buy some now tyres and sell the others on ebay as suggested. If VOSA say no then you go back to the garage with your repport ans ask them what they are going to do about it and if they say "nothing" then you can bite their a**e for selling an unroadworthy vehicle and all the other bits you mentioned will be grist to the mill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WARNING ABOUT PURSUING A TRIVIAL CASE TOO FAR

 

Important Appeal Court Case Precedent supplied by Andrew Quirk

 

A recent hearing highlighted the importance of seeking sensible early legal advice in order to save unnecessary expense.

 

Darren Egan vs. Motor Services (Bath) Ltd (18 October 2007) is a Court of Appeal case which saw the consumer who attempted to reject his vehicle lose out dramatically.

 

The consumer complained that his car, a new Audi TT 3.2 litre V6, veered to the left and as such wanted to return the car to the dealer and be refunded.

 

Whilst an expert witness gave evidence supporting the consumers claim, the Court ruled that the vehicle was "of satisfactory quality" because the sensitivity of the car to camber was in fact normal for that type of car - the reasonable person would not consider that this would make the vehicle unsatisfactory.

 

This provided a useful case precedent for motor dealers as it makes clear that vehicles may have "characteristics" such as sensitivity to the camber of the road without being "of unsatisfactory quality". It may also prove to be useful case law for retailers of other consumer products.

 

The legal expenditure of both parties was around £100,000 and the car cost £32,300 in July 2003. This led Lord Justice Ward to exclaim: "...one or other parties to the action, if not both of them..." were "...completely cuckoo..." to have pursued the litigation when little was at stake and that the lawyers should have taken "...the firmest grip..." from the outset.

 

This case shows the fundamental importance of getting expert guidance on the legal issues raised in a dispute and how to resolve it at the earliest opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...