Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You should start putting everything in writing. Even the ombudsman, to begin a serious complaint by telephone is quite frankly crazy. I hope you have taken a copy of at least the advertisement that you have posted above.  I don't suppose that you kept a copy of the original AutoTrader advertisement.  How much in writing have you got of anything? I would suggest also that you telephone the ombudsman tomorrow and ask them for details of the complaint that they have received from you and tell them that you want it in writing.  You will be amazed how scant The records of which are kept by these people. Read our customer services guide and at least actually give you some idea of how you should deal with customer service people or any call handlers on the telephone.  It is very important that you get a written summary of the report which you made to the ombudsman so that you can see exactly what they are investigating. The complaint to the ombudsman should have been very carefully considered over a period of time rather than simply made in a phone call
    • Funnily enough the ad is still available online Range Rover 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography LWB Previously Sold | Clinkard Performance Cars WWW.CLINKARDCARS.CO.UK Performance, Prestigious and Specialist cars Dealers in Romsey, Hampshire but the autotrader version isn't which was probably slightly different potentially with more information. Reported to FOS over the phone but essentially gave them the same information I've stated here, updating them that I'm paying for a car I haven't had for nearly a month now etc I'll certainly come back with an update. Fingers crossed they will realise it's not worth taking to court. So the inspection among other things found a hairline crack across a load bearing section of the chasis which at the minute to the naked eye looks tiny but could turn out to be catastrophic and has had some filler chucked on top of it but we'll see what Clinkards inspection comes back with. Distance wise I believe they're around 165-170 miles away from me. Also I'm sure many people will have PCP agreements as it's the most common way to buy cars under 5 years old but they just forgotten the terminology or name for it. Pay deposit, choose a length then pay the difference between value today and guaranteed future value at the end of that agreed term   Whole experience has scarred me and moving forward I'd be tempted to pay for a pre purchase inspection myself because these guys are bigggg traders with a lot of top end cars. I just hope they don't make any more silly offers
    • Strange final response. They say that they are still investigating but they are giving you their final response anyway. Seems like a load of nonsense. Have you got a copy of what you then sent to the ombudsman? Anyway, for the moment although would like to know – it really is all for curiosity because as you have put it into the hands of the ombudsman it's probably not worth doing anything more until you have a reply. I would suggest that when you decide to spend this kind of money in future on a used car, that you understand exactly what your rights are before you make the purchase. When you buy anything – and maybe especially used car you should realise that you aren't only paying for the car, you are also paying for a bundle of consumer obligations which are intended to bind the dealer. You are paying for a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality and remains that way for a reasonable period of time and you are paying for any defects which emerge to be addressed and repaired at the expense of the dealer. We've already pointed out that by purchasing the warranty, they have effectively persuaded you to pay for something for which you have already paid. Very decent of you not to want to cause trouble in respect of defects which manifested themselves within the first few weeks. I have no idea why. For £78,000…. This you say that they were age-related problems – that is still no reason why those defects should have been there or why the dealer should not have been responsible for them. It seems to me that you have a clear case against the dealer/the finance company. We don't have many or any PCP purchases on this forum. However, it seems to me that the finance company is probably responsible for the condition of the vehicle because effectively you have bought it from them and to that extent it should be the same as HP. With a hire purchase agreement, it is as if you bought the vehicle directly from the finance company not from the dealer and it is the finance company which bears all the consumer obligations. I think the only thing you can do is to monitor the situation. Update us when you hear from the financial ombudsman and if you need to take the matter to court then we will help you. In principle it should be straightforward – but certainly there is a risk of a serious bill for costs if you lose. I don't see you losing. Did you say somewhere that the report suggested that the vehicle was unroadworthy? Have you got the advertisement for the vehicle? Does it make claims for the vehicle which are clearly untrue? And by the way, four hours away from you is what kind of distance? Have you read our used car guide? Have you looked at the video?
    • there's one in this thread.. i wonder if its the same, they seem to be identical regardless each time we have a thread with one Vehicle Control Services Privacy Notice, Brooke Retail Car Park, HA4 0LN - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group  
  • 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

Minster Law Dropped Our Case

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3358 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi, this is my first time on a forum so apologies in advance for the length of this posting.


We owned a 1934 classic car and in October 2011 it was being transported to a venue by a reputable carrier in whose tow vehicle my husband was a passenger. Unfortunately the car was totally destroyed when the carrier's driver lost control and both vehicles somersaulted across three lanes of the motorway.


The carrier accepted liability and, as we had legal cover and it seemed a straightforward case, our insurers passed us onto Minster Law to handle the claim. Problems arose very soon after the claim was initiated. A friend, who is by co-incidence the head of a legal department with another insurance company, told us to claim as cargo, but Minster insisted the claim be handled as a RTA, even though our car was actually being transported by a third party.


Months went by until eventually, the TP's insurers offered a ridiculously low sum in settlement, despite them having a certified receipt for the vehicle. (Anyone with any knowledge of classic cars would know that values actually increase with age, plus ours had been maintained in top condition.) They then deducted a high amount for salvage based on the assumption that because it was a specialist car we could disassemble it ourselves and sell it for parts!!!


Minster suggested another option so we declined the offer and were told that court papers were being prepared - indeed they sent us a copy of the official notification. Still matters dragged on. We had to frequently chase for updates and answers to questions, some of which were totally ignored. We were worried because our car was being stored at a specialist garage and charges were growing daily. Getting desperate, we asked for copies of letters relating to our case. They were promised several times but nothing ever materialized. Then, in September 2012 we were informed, out of the blue, that Minster had received a cheque from the TP's insurers. Since we were under the illusion that court proceedings were pending, we were aghast that they had accepted this. When we queried it, we received a curt letter, which basically said 'like it or lump it'. The handler claimed it was an interim payment, that she had advised us previously to accept the offer (she hadn't) and we went against her advice. She intimated that our car was not worth the money we'd paid for it. She also told us we are now liable for storage charges from the date of the cheque. No further mention was made of court action.


We reluctantly accepted the payment on the basis that we could still dispute the valuation but my husband phoned our insurers to report our unhappiness with the way things had progressed and also contacted the Complaints department at Minster Law.


The claims handler suddenly went on long-term sick leave and the case was transferred to someone else. Despite this, the position remains unchanged. Minster refused to fight the claim as cargo and since we have continued to argue the valuation they are now refusing to act any further on our behalf. They ask that any new solicitor submit a 'lien'. We have no idea what this is, but it sounds ominous and expensive.


Despite our requests for a meeting with the Complaints department, they say they cannot see any benefit in it.


We invested my husband's entire redundancy payment in that car and had just started up a wedding business, but that has now been blown out of the water, yet we're not asking for compensation, only for justice. None of this was our fault, we've acted honestly and in good faith throughout, yet it feels like we're being punished for trusting: a) the carrier to transport our vehicle safely: b) the insurers to play fair and c) the lawyers who are supposed to be looking after our best interests.


How can this seemingly straightforward case have gone so badly wrong?


Answers on a postage stamp please! :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure where you stand legally nor would I try to guess, but this looks like a great story for Watchdog so might be well worth contacting them. I wish you luck,

I know my rights Mr DCA I'm with the CAG......hello hello where you gone Mr DCA8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would escalate to the Legal Ombudsman. Make sure you have followed the proper process set out on their website. Your complaint needs to contain all the relevant information, don't assume the person reading it knows anything about the case. I doubt they have a proper "complaints department" and I would say keep things in writing rather than going to meetings.




Link to post
Share on other sites

The handler claimed it was an interim payment, that she had advised us previously to accept the offer (she hadn't) and we went against her advice. She intimated that our car was not worth the money we'd paid for it. She also told us we are now liable for storage charges from the date of the cheque. No further mention was made of court action.


We reluctantly accepted the payment on the basis that we could still dispute the valuation but my husband phoned our insurers to report our unhappiness with the way things had progressed and also contacted the Complaints department at Minster Law.


The claims handler suddenly went on long-term sick leave and the case was transferred to someone else. Despite this, the position remains unchanged. Minster refused to fight the claim as cargo and since we have continued to argue the valuation they are now refusing to act any further on our behalf.


This sounds alost exactly the same as a situation I was in a few years back with Shoosmiths (acting as claims handler for Carole Nash) though the excuse then was maternity leave. They were good enough to have lost all the earlier documentation sent to them when it was transferred from one desk to another - work that one out.

It's now six years later and about two grand or so down for a car that was written off by the neighbour from hell when parked up.


You have my sympathy, I can't offer you any advice though except to check with a solicitor that can truly act on your behalf, if only to get the new claims handler to play ball.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies guys.


Steampowered and Padja,


We're hoping that the ombudsman and media will be the last, desperate resorts and that we can resolve this sensibly with Minster. Failing that, would we be able to go back to our insurers and claim on our own policy or is it too late for that? We only agreed to go with Minster because our IC assured us it was a straightforward case.




The business was in its infancy and we'd only done a few events before the car was destroyed. However it was so eye-catching and unique that the website did generate interest - including from TV companies, so we probably could have made a living out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have lost any earnings, or potential earnings, you can claim these back from the Defendant's Insurer too.


It would be interesting to verify how successful that is. In my case my own insurer backed the claims handler and I was left with nothing but the trade valuation of the vehicle, despite refusing the amount (they turned up six months after she was written off, having spent that time outside the house, and was due to be taken to the scrap yard the week after).

Get a solicitor to act on your behalf since the original handler, despite being paid to act on your behalf, is not doing what they are obliged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Minster Law took over a year to process my claim telling me at every stage that the claim was strong and that they were gathering additional evidence but several times I had to send material to them again. Now they are saying (even though the circumstances remain the same) that they want to drop the case. Their reasoning does not make sense and is contradictory to what they said originally. I get the feeling that they are just overworked and don't have the capacity to do what is necessary. The tone of the communications is rather threatening too 'please confirm once and for all'.


Having let this drag on for so long has now undermined my chance of taking this forward on my own through the small claims court. It is really an open and shut case, with photographic evidence of a funnel web spider web in tomatoes from Sainsbury's, the store receipt with the manager's signature, photos of a spider bite, medical reports that confirm a wound consistent with a spider bite and Sainsbury's giving contradictory refutation of the claim but having lost the evidence (the box of tomatoes with the spider web).


My advice is to stay well clear of this company. They are slow, unprofessional, and incompetent.



Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...