Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Piers aint that bad (recently amended opinion)  
    • It looks as if you have been completely ripped off. I'm sorry about that but frankly I don't think there is much you can do – and believe me, it is not often that I say that on this forum. I think it's fairly clear that there has been a deception here and although it won't help massively, I would suggest that you report the crime to the police. They will try to say that is a civil matter and you will have to stick to your guns and say that no there's been a deception, that this man is selling cars in an unroadworthy condition and probably he is committing tax fraud offences as well. I'm afraid that there doesn't even evidence that you have the correct name. It seems entirely possible that such a person simply doesn't exist. I don't see any point in beginning a legal action because if you don't even have the correct name for this dealer, then a judgement recorded against his credit file will make absently no difference at all and you will simply incur the costs of bringing the claim. I doubt very much whether he would bother to respond to a claim or to put in a defence. If he did put in a defence then if you wanted to move on to the hearing stage you would have to pay another fee and this would simply put you even more out of pocket – probably to the tune of about £250 or so – and as it seems very unlikely that you could ever enforce the judgement, you would never get any of this money back. I'm sure you feel very bad and very upset. The only other thing you should do is start going around the review sites and putting up negative reviews about this person and his business – and business names. At least it will put other people on guard and you never know, you might stumble across other people who know more about him and actually know who he is. If you do decide to inform the police then you should tell the police that he is trading under a false name. In terms of your car, I'm afraid that the only way I can suggest to cut your losses is to have the work done. It means that you are £1000 down on the deal – but at least you will have a driving car. However, before doing that I would have the car thoroughly checked over to make sure that there aren't any other defects which are about to materialise which might eventually make the car is simply not economical to repair. You said that there was an MOT certificate in the glove box. Is it a recent MOT certificate? Are you able to speak with the previous owner at all?  Cagger @Daniel Hanson who has also bought a vehicle from the same person may be able to help you in this respect. It seems that he has been lucky enough not to have any problem so far with the car that he bought. I think at the very least, the lessons to be drawn from this are: Don't purchase a used car – or any car from a dealer who is far away from you make sure you check the car yourself make sure that the dealer is well established and do some research on forums and review sites for negative reviews and positive reviews. However, be suspicious of positive reviews. Don't pay cash/bank transfer. You lose all control of your money. Insist on paying by credit card or debit card and if the dealer won't accept it then walk away. Ignore warranties. They are meaningless and they are simply a red herring intended to distract you from your statutory rights. However, as you are discovering, even your statutory rights are meaningless if you are unable to identify the dealer and if you are able to identify any assets belonging to the dealer against which you could enforce judgement. Please do let us know how this develops and if you are able to track anybody down. As I say, I think you should certainly inform the police – but it will be a hard job to get them to take notice because they will simply try to say that it's a civil matter and there is no evidence of a crime. You will have to push hard.
    • That is one mean spirited individual, looks like what a Dickensian female Workhouse Beadle would look like.
    • I'll reply more fully  later as I'm about to go out. But meantime who was this person who you allowed to drive your car? How did you know him? Was he insured to drive your car? If you are to defend the matter we need to find out if you have a reasonable chance of success.
    • I think it particularly telling that overweight poopulist Tory **** whos worst experience on missing a meal is missing out on cake, biscuit and tea for elevensese between free breakfast and free lunch, and who voted as a decidedly overweight whole to leave British children hungry, STILL claim that its age and obesity, not their own policies and practices, that have generating the 'world beating' British death rates.   Perhaps they are leading up to claiming that them voting for children to go hungry was part of the health drive to reduce the childrens risk of catching Covid? Wouldn't put it past them.    
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2584 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

Can anyone explain me why COT3 agreement (brokered through ACAS) does not require the claimant to take an independent legal advice and Settlement Agreement does? The ACAS conciliator does not provide any advice on the terms of settlement, so it must be a clear disadvantage for an unrepresented claimant to go via ACAS(COT3) then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because s203 Employment Rights Act 1996 says so ... legally speaking no other reason is required.

 

In an ideal world an unrepresented claimant would always want advice on the terms of a settlement. However unrepresented claimants might not be able to afford this advice. Sometimes it is paid for by the employer, but the employer the costs of this would be taken into account by the employer when deciding on the level of its settlement offer.

 

Also remember that the only legal advice required for a binding settlement agreement is on " the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and, in particular, its effect on his ability to pursue his rights before an employment tribunal". An employer would usually only pay for the bare minimum - this doesn't cover advice on whether the terms of settlement are fair or advice on whether the claim has a good chance of success.

 

I'm not quite sure why parliament took this decision. I imagine they thought that having an ACAS conciliator involved would offer some sort of protection and that use of the COT3 form would help make things clear for claimants. My guess is that parliament was concerned about people settling their claims without realising what they are doing - for example, a situation where an employer asks all its employees to sign a piece of paper, which includes a clause about settling all claims, without properly reading the document.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...