Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I Know I will get flamed for this , but for once time only I am with MET . The so called  “graffiti” is there to help people , Parent and child bays , Disabled bays , and electric charge point bays are all there for a reason  , just suppose you had an electric car and it was in need of charging ,had children in the car and need extra space to get them out ,had a disabled passenger who needs extra space . how would you feel  if the bay was obstructed . I have no doubt the experts here will guide you to having the parking charge cancelled . But morally ………..
    • I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that   I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that.
    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/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 © show how the Defendant 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;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for 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 also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   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.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
  • Our picks

Rickoza

Used Car Purchase Advice

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2416 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

I purchased a car from a Used Car Dealer in Glasgow at the end of March. It was paid for by debit card, full cost up front (£695). The seller claimed to be "just working there that day filling in", turns out he works there all the time sourcing cars for them. As soon as I drove it I noticed the spedometer didn't work, neither did the odometer, and pointed this out - I was told to bring it back the next day as they could do nothing about it and it would be "okay to drive, just judge your speed by the rest of the cars on the road"!! As I drove home (about 20 miles away) the car began to completely lose power almost every time I dropped gears. I called them the next day, strangely no-one available but I left a message to say I'd be bringing the car back and wanted a refund. I duly did, only to be met by the "official salesman" telling me he couldn't do anything as the person who sold it would have to authorise the refund and wouldn't be back for another 5 hours.I went to the local Police station for advice, they agreed that whilst they couldn't intervene they said it dangerous to drive a car without a working spedometer or odometer (to me that's fraudulant to sell a car which doesn't record mileage) and that it breached the sale of goods act by selling a car with such defaults (even though it wouldnt' fail an MOT). Armed with this, I went back and low and behold the guy who wouldnt' be back for 5 hours and only was filling in had suddenly turned up, as had another 3 guys and each chipped in with their own sarcastic, heavily-toned comments. After much arguing I eventually got back £545, but they refused to give me back the remaining £150 claiming it was a "non-refundable deposit", none of which was advised to me at any time. The seller then began to become agressive in tone, saying I would get nothing back and I'd be more than welcome to go to Trading Standards and that they'd "laugh themselves silly at me". The car was clearly not fit for purpose, and irrespective of it costing less than £700, it's not unreasonable to expect to know how fast you are going and how far you've gone, or for the car to be reliable enough to retain power when you brake? I have contacted Trading Standards who unfotunately haven't been much help, telling me to write to this company, though I know this would be pointless. Can anyone please advise me what is best to do, I can ill-afford to lose the £150?

Edited by Rickoza
Ease of reading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you put this into paragraphs please. Makes it easier to read.


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

I've tried a few times, unfortunately it seems to just retain the original settings. Sorry about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No easy fix.will take time and effort.

You do need to write to them asking for all your money back and use sale of goods act. give them 7 days to repay anf then take them to small claims court.

Alos majke a formalcomplaint to trading standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks, is there a template letter I could use for this, want to word it properly. Felt really threatened when I was in there, and whilst they probably wouldn't have done anything you just had this seriously uncomfortable feeling the whole time I was there.

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...