Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. 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. 9. 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.
  • 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

Used car issues - can I claim back costs?


191108
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4069 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

 

This is my first post so please bear with me, I'll try and keep this as concise as I can.

 

We bought a 2006 Ford Focus Estate around 6 weeks ago from a dealership, and afer having it for around 2/3 weeks we started to experience problems. Initially this was the interior heater not working, and then followed by a raft of other issues (I won't bore with the details!). We have reported all of the issues to the seller who thought it was best for a local garage to carry out repairs (we live an hour from him) and he would pay them directly. We were happy with this and took the car to a trusted and established place to close to our home.

 

Fast forward another two weeks and the same problem happened again, followed by the car seizing up completely. We informed the seller immediately who, still believing it was nothing serious, advised us to take it back to the same garage and that he would liaise directly with them to resolve the issue. At this point we were happy that considering the situation things seemed to be straightforward.......that's until it was diagnosed with a blown head gasket! The seller refused to believe that this was the case and arranged for it to be towed back to his garage. Naturally, we requested a replacement vehicle - either in the form of a courtesy car or him hiring us a vehicle. He refused saying, quote: 'I don't do replacement cars'. We argued the point to the stage where he was hanging up on us and not answering our calls. My husband is self employed and relies on a vehicle to be able to work and having already missed one days pay wasn't keen to miss any further so we reluctantly hired our own vehicle.

 

Fast forward again slightly and after repeated phone conversations, they finally agreed that the head gasket had in fact gone and set to work replacing it. As of today, the car is still not fixed and they are claiming that it may be another week at least. We have now paid out for a total of 3 weeks hire car totalling hundreds of pounds, not to mention the loss of work time and the cost of getting the car towed to the local garage when we broke down.

 

We have requested repeatedly that he reconsiders reimbursing us for the hire car costs but he completely refuses and to be frank, doesn't show much sympathy towards our situation. He can often be found claiming: 'I am spending a fortune on this car' - 'we can't afford any extra costs'. Well, neither can we.

 

With this in mind, my plan is to write to him on Monday (and send by recorded delivery) stating that we require full reimbursement with 14 days, if no response/says no) I will write to him a final time before lodging a claim through the Small Claims Court.

 

We are torn as to whether or not to just request a refund for the car: can anyone give me any advice? Also, we believe we have grounds to say that the car must have be sold with defects in order for this to have happened so quickly, and according to the local mechanic, in his opinion, the car had not been adequately checked/serviced (I understand this is his words against theirs, though).

 

Through this whole situation I have kept a spreadsheet detailing conversations and actions, as well as emailing the seller with things we have discussed requesting he respond so that we have a record - this has been a bit hit and miss!

 

I'd really appreciate anyones take on our situation as a whole and any advice anyone might have as to if we are going about things correctly and if we can realistically expect to get our money back.

 

Many thanks

 

PS excuse my complete lack of car/technical knowledge.

Edited by 191108
Link to post
Share on other sites

Debatable but on balance yes for the towing fee and no for the car hire costs. No dealer or manufactuer is liable for car hire costs on a product sold and the purchasor is not entitled to temporary replacement vehicles so to speak. If they pay for it it would be because of goodwill or that they are insured for it. This applies to all goods. They are not required to do anything for you other than fix the issue.

 

You would have to persuit a seperate action for costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Debatable but on balance yes for the towing fee and no for the car hire costs. No dealer or manufactuer is liable for car hire costs on a product sold and the purchasor is not entitled to temporary replacement vehicles so to speak. If they pay for it it would be because of goodwill or that they are insured for it. This applies to all goods. They are not required to do anything for you other than fix the issue.

 

You would have to persuit a seperate action for costs.

 

Thanks for your response.

 

In regards to the point you make relating to a purchaser not being entitled to a temporary replacement: is this common knowledge or taken from a piece of legislation/guidance that I could have a read? Also, is it a 'set' ruling or does it depend on the severity of the disruption caused by us not being able to use the purchased item?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have to repair or replace, that is all. Anything else you would have to pursuit seperately as a consequencial loss. Where dealers do supply tempoary loan cars is as a gesture of goodwill and good business sense however it has now become common place that people expect it as a matter of course and the entitlement is simply not the case.

 

If my dishwasher caught fire and needed the dishes washing the supplier does not have to give me a loan dishwasher whilst I wait for it to be fixed or send Mrs Mop to do it for me. If of course I chose to rent one or hire a Mrs Mop then that would be down to me and I would have to sue the manufactuer or rather who sold it to me for the costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I agree with the dishwasher analogy, as in this example you obviously have another method of washing the dishes (the sink) so are not really being inconvenienced significantly; in our case we cannot function in our daily lives without a car and no alternative exists for us without incurring a significant cost. I feel the strong point of our argument is the time it is taking for the car to be repaired, not reasonable in our eyes.

 

I appreciate the clarification and I am certain that you are right in saying it's not common practice for a courtesy vehicle to be provided (thank you for informing me of this), but it doesn't mean we won't still fight our corner and at least try to recover some costs. Hopefully we can put forward a strong enough case and argument to make it a successful battle :-)

 

By the way, by 'sue' do you mean persue court action through the small claims court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, perhaps it's not the best analogy but you have got the drift and yes by "sue", pursuit, suit, sew or whatever in the small claims court. Easiest thing is to explain this to the dealer concerned that you intend to recover your additional expenses byt this method and it should concentrate his mind! Be careful though in how you word it as you are using it as part of a business and the rules might not be seen as the same to that of private use obviously depending on what you use the car for. An example of this would be someone buying a car from a dealer as a private individual and then using it as a private hire vehicle/pre booked taxi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, good point.

 

My husband is self-employed (a sole trader) and doesn't use the vehicle for business purposes other than commuting to and from a place of work/job. I use it to do the menial things in life but to which it is essential when you have a 16 month old!

 

He is being slippery, no doubt about it and had we had to hire car for perhaps just 1 week, then I don't think I'd be here asking the questions in all honestly; it's the fear of not knowing how long this will go on for as when we ask for a reasonable time-frame he gets very agitated until we force him to give us a day/date - all very wishy washy. As I've mentioned above, 3 weeks worth of hire has now been paid for and who know how many more weeks................thats the scary part and what has forced me in to action!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think on balance you need to give an accurate time line of events. You say you have a spreadsheet which is very good and will make a huge difference as to how you handle this. The focus itself (apart from some diesel varients) is an extreamly reliable car and the head gasket fail is very unusual. In fact I think I'd actually question it.

 

I would say that in this case you should write by recorded delivery an official rejection letter and a subsequent letter by the same means that you fully intend to follow the matter through and recover the costs you are currently incurring as a result. There are templates on this forum to reject but the subsequential loss I don't know.

 

There are a few posters who take an accurate pragmatic view on a lot of what you said such as Conniff and Sailor Sam and will look at a rejection letter based on the facts rather than just firing one off. Suggest you ask them for help with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...