Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Lastly, I will go to the site to get updated images, but from google earth, you can see from the pictures the entrance states it is for the hotel parking, which I follwed instructions and gave my details to the hotel. Where I think my car was parked (it was that long ago I'm not exactly sure) there are signs on the opposite wall, but it was 12.30am, pitch black and they could not be seen.
    • I was planning on collecting up other court cases they have lost, to refer to as part of my evidence, I'm not sure if this is worth doing or could just confuse matters? But there seem to be many where the judge has ruled against them because of confusing and not clearly displayed signage, trespass, as well as their charge being £100, which is more than the Bevis case said was reasonable.    A quick search found this article as one example KBT cornwall lose case article.pdf
    • OK, I will do now. I did look to black out certain things, but I was not sure what I should and should not redact and there was nothing on there that was personal enough for me to be concerned with being made public. So I am happy for all to view, but if you are kind enough to redact what is needed as per the forum rules, that would be amazing. Armtrak Defence documents_compressed.pdf
    • yes but have the landowner paid this years contract fee. no evidence they have in the ws. pop it back up now if you wish. the forum is quiet i'll redact it for you so we have the info.   dx  
    • Thank you all so much for taking the time to comment and help, I really do appreciate it.   Just to elaborate a bit more on the background, just because my lack of knowledge of the process might mean I've actually done things along the way that I did not know what they were and so hadn't mention it.    When they decided to go to court, I was offered mediation, which I took. I offered to pay the reduced rate, just to make it go away, but insisted it was not an admission of guilt, it was a goodwill gesture to save us all the effort of court. They refused and wanted £250.    A court date was set, but in Leeds, then a couple weeks later I received another letter saying it had been moved to London.   I was not aware I had any say in which court it would be held at, but I now understand i have good reason to request it is moved to a local one to me, which is also local to the offending place, I will call the court tomorrow and explain that. But so far I have only been told what is happening, I've not been given the choice for anything.   They seem to be going down the route of a contract breach, not trespass which is interesting. There is a document in the evidence which has the agreement between themselves which I assumed meant they can pursue me.    I am going to visit the site again shortly, at midnight the time of the offence and take pictures to build a case file of the route I took to enter the car park, how it is in the hotel grounds and no signs can be seen.    Am I right in saying, the fact they do not actually have any pictures of my car in the location they say it was in, just because all of the pictures they have were at 12/30am and it was pitch black, I am going to say my car was parked correctly in the hotel side, not on their land and it is then up to them to prove otherwise, which they are not able to do, because the burden of proof lies with the claimant I think?
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2487 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

We bought a Toyota Celica T Sport that failed on the first day of ownership: big end bearing failure. We have an engineer's report and permission to use it. Knowing that the defendant has to prove that the engine was ok when the car was sold, can he use an MOT certificate to do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We bought a Toyota Celica T Sport that failed on the first day of ownership: big end bearing failure. We have an engineer's report and permission to use it. Knowing that the defendant has to prove that the engine was ok when the car was sold, can he use an MOT certificate to do this?

 

The MOT test only speaks to if the vehicle met the standards of fitness for safety, on the day of certification, nor offers any opinion as to the state of the car on any other day.

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

I think the point at issue is that the law assumes that the fault was pre-existing, unless the defendant can prove otherwise. So presumably the MOT cannot possibly prove this, and the Garage who conducted the MOT test cannot in his statement deal with this issue? I understand that the MOT does not deal with the condition of the engine, but just the standards of fitness and safety (on the day of certification). Have I got all this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Have you given the place you purchased the vehicle an opportunity to rectify the problem?

 

How was the vehicle advertised?

 

Was this a Private seller or a Trader/Dealership?

 

Did you sign any documentation that stated 'Sold as Seen'?


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

Yes. My husband rang them the day after we bought the car and explained the problem, and that we had taken it to a Toyota garage and they suspected big end failure. Basically he said that my husband must have caused the damage driving on the motorway on the way home. He refused to do anything about it, put the phone down and said "See you in Court". We then wrote several letters, and received the same sort of response. We suspect that he was angry that we had been to Toyota, as they had produced a printout for us saying that the car had the same problem in 2010. We have since found out we were provided with a fake service history. We got the proper one from a previous owner. He is trying to say that the MOT a week before we bought the car proves the car was ok, so we must have caused the damage.

 

The vehicle was advertised in Autotrader. It was also advertised as coming from a Main Dealer. We part exchanged our Golf and he advertised that as coming from a Main Dealer, which is obviously untrue, so we don't believe that ours came from a Main Dealer. He refuses to say where the car came from. It is not a private seller. It is a motor company with a forecourt of around 30 cars. We did not sign anything as sold as seen. It was sold to us as in the Autotrader advert, and as coming from a Main Dealer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was also sold with an AA 12 month warranty and so-called "peace of mind". The advert said we could take the car to any garage in the UK under the warranty, which is why we just took it to the nearest Toyota Garage. The AA said that as it happened on the day of purchase it was a "point of sale" problem, so they couldn't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CS47 I am going to move this thread to the Motoring section for the experts there to advise.I appreciate its connected to your legal query...

 

Regards

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to General Motoring Issues.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately with the dealers attitude, you no option but to tske him to court for your money back.

First you need to write a LBA ( send recorded ) refering to previous letters etc and tell him unless you receive full return of your money in seven days you will start court proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
unfortunately with the dealers attitude, you no option but to tske him to court for your money back.

First you need to write a LBA ( send recorded ) refering to previous letters etc and tell him unless you receive full return of your money in seven days you will start court proceedings.

 

Already a matter of litigation ray proceedings have commenced...this thread is just for the technical aspects of the engine.

 

Legal forum http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?381368-Judgment-set-aside(4-Viewing)-nbsp

 

Regards

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, nothing further I can add!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a dispute with a motor company ongoing in the Small Claims Court.

 

The advert for the car said FSH. When we came to collect the car we were told that the original service history book had been lost and we were provided with a "duplicate service history".

 

We took the car to Toyota with the mechanical problems on the day after purchase and they produced a printout that didn't match with our "duplicate service history". A few months later we found the name of the previous owner in documents. We wrote to her asking for information about the car and she sent us the original service history book which only went as far as 2009. The "duplicate" was not correct in the details of the servicing garages, garage who sold the car as new, and all the later services were from the details of the garages who conducted the MOT tests.

 

It is part of our case that the car was not as described as the car did not have a full service history and the duplicate is obviously a fake. The dealer has said to us that under Trading Standards rules: "If the vehicle's service book does not follow the vehicle and a duplicate is issued any services entered into the book must coincide with garages that have been in contact with the vehicle for MOT work or general maintenance/service". He also states that were were happy to accept the duplicate service book at the point of sale , knowing it was not 100 per cent accurate". In fact it is almost entirely false, but just contains some stamps from garages who have done MOT tests on the vehicle. He has no written proof that we accepted the duplicate service book at the point of sale, knowing it was not 100 per cent accurate. We most definitely did not say this.

 

Is his quoting of the Trading Standards rule correct? Would he have to have had our consent in writing? We have it in writing on the original purchase details that we asked about the full service history and he would look for it. So I suppose that is evidence that we were concerned about the full service history, but when we collected the car we accepted a "duplicate service history" in the belief that it was a copy of the original, or verified as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't quite follow what you are saying about the duplicate service history book. Please can you explain which bits of the duplicate service history are "false"? Does the book actually contain fraudulent/untrue entries or it is just incomplete?


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Threads merged

 

CS47 please stop starting new threads on the same matter.

 

Regards

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first page of the duplicate service book, where it has the originating garage, that is incorrect - it is a completely made up garage, different area of the country. The first two Toyota services are the wrong garage, different area of the country, and another Toyota one further on is the wrong garage. The rest of the stamps are of garages or MOT centres that have done MOT tests on the car. There is only one detail that is correct: one of the mileages of the service accords with the mileage of that particular service on the original. All the dates are wrong.

 

He justifies it on the basis that he has done the best he can from MOT records and says that we agreed with the fact that it is not 100 per cent accurate! He would have been able to check the Toyota ones from Toyota (as we have done), but has just made them up instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Andy. There are just so many issues in this case that I thought it was better to keep them separate. But I will keep them together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I split your thread with that intention...so all to do with the mechanics and engine here and anything legal in your other thread.We can re merge once you have gathered all the required advice from here back into legal.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You accepted the duplicate on the basis it was 'reasonably' accurate! which it has proved not to be so.

Also it would depend on how the cae was described etc.

mileage,age, how long after it was bought it developed this fault etc. ( not looked at earlier thread )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same day apparently Ray.

 

MOT is irrelevant to the engine's condition apart from serious oil leak or emissions etc. OP should vigorously pursue the matter in court to reject the car as being not fit for the purpose which is apparently being done. Judge may order an independent inspection the cost of which will normally be shared between the parties and then the successful side re-coups.

 

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.


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

The car was described as: 60,000 miles, FSH, 12 months AA Warrangy, supplied by Main Dealer. We part exchanged our Golf, and that was described as "Supplied to us by a Main Dealer" too. So we challenged him to provide the name of the Main Dealer of the Toyota Celica. He refuses, even though the judge gave directions for him to do so.

 

It developed a major fault (failure of big end bearing) on the day of purchase. On motorway on the way home we noticed a loud noise and took it to Toyota the next morning.

 

So we are putting forward our case as: not of sufficient quality, durability; not fit for purpose; and not as described, and the full service history is part of that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had an independent report, which confirms the big end bearing fault. Toyota confirmed that the car had the same problem in 2010. Apparently this was repaired outside of the Toyota network, but has obviously recurred.

 

The defendants are still persisting in their main defence that we caused the fault on the way home by driving too fast on the motorway. When my husband spoke to the car company the day after purchase he was asked about how he had driven it home. My husband completely honestly said it was a Monday night, there was nothing on the road and he may have reached speeds of around 80 mph. So the defendant says we have damaged the car by driving it beyond its capacity. We were only on the motorway for 28 miles. It is a Toyota Celica T Sport! So that's another part of our argument that if he says that, it is not fit for purpose as a sports car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miss-sold as well then. You should be on to a winner here. But be warned... these type of 'dealers' know the score when it comes to courts... they will know all the tricks to avoid a judgement and paying out. I suggest you apply to the court for a financial assessment hearing (formally known as an oral examination). It will cost you a fee BUT the respondent MUST attend and give evidence under oath. You would need to obtain judgement first I think.

 

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.


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

We had judgment and we were going to do all of that. The defendants did not turn up at the hearing, but then made an application to set aside on the basis that they had a good excuse for not attending and that when they rang the court the day before they were told that their case would be considered on the papers if they couldn't come. They didn't say why they couldn't come, but only said on the day of the application that they were both ill with flu on the day of the hearing. The judge didn't consider the strength of their case at all but just accepted that they were ill and misled by the court, so the judgment was set aside. We are devastated by this as it was so obvious that all the excuses were made up. It is also only recently that they have made a response on the service history point.

 

So we are going through all the aspects of the case to try to get judgment again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, they know all the tricks. They are just stringing it out for as long as they can. I hope you applied for interest on your claim!

 

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.


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

Absolutely. In our letter to the Court after the defendant made an application to set aside we stated that this was a cynical attempt to delay matters. At the time, we had no idea what the defendants were going to say was their excuse for not attending as the application form contained no information or supporting evidence. They even said they had emailed the court the day before (the Court hadn't received it of course), but they didn't attach a copy to the application!

 

The judge we had at the first hearing was excellent and understood totally the situation. But the second judge at the application just accepted anything the defendants said, which was such a shock. But she did say that the case should be reheard quickly and unbelievably we have a date of 3rd May! So we have written to the court asking for it to be heard sooner, as the judge had recommended, and asked for it to be reserved to the first judge who had already read all of the papers. We just hope if that is not successful we get a judge who understands the nature of such "dealers".

 

We are certainly adding interest to our claim.

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...