Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The US streaming giant is forced to lay off staff to minimise cost of viewers quitting the service.View the full article
    • Hi Dave2019   That response to your councillor is short and direct so lets see how your councillor will act with Platform.   I think you have noticed that Platform are not telling the correct facts to news article/MP/Councillor which is absolutely typical of these Housing Association to always give there version of events to make them look as if they have done everything by the book to make them look good we haven't done anything wrong.   This is when you challenge them as you have done and throw there own Customer Community Engagement Strategy in there face and you keep doing this with what I have pointed out in post#67 (as a reference).   The more you do this the more Platform are not going to like it as it impacts their own Customer Care Policy, Complaints Policy and that specific Customer Engagement Strategy as these look more like just a paper exercise to make them look good but putting them into practice they are not just failing but are in fact Breaching those Policies.            
    • Ok! I think it's about there, I've added those final points. Thanks again for looking this over!   Px CLAIMANT
 ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS LIMITED – AND – DEFENDANT XXXX WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXX I, xxxx of xxxx, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;   1. The Witness – xxxx states in point 3 that:   “It is noted that the Defendant does not dispute entering into a credit agreement with the Claimant.”   This in not true. I have never entered nor admitted to entering into an agreement with the claimant.   2. The default notice mentioned in point 6 was issued on 26/04/2017 and served 4 years, 3 months and 27 days after the last written acknowledgment of the debt on 30/12/2012 by myself. Thus, the cause of action delayed by 4 years 3 months and 27 days and the Limitations period prolonged to 10 years, 11 months, 16 days. This, in effect, allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.   3. In point 5 xxxx states I was issued with A Notice of Assignment on 22/11/2013. In point 6 he states that a Default Notice was sent to me on 04/03/2014. In point 7 he states I was sent a Termination Notice on 26/04/2017. In point 8 the legal proceedings and transference to Drydens solicitors took place without my knowledge.   I received none of these notices or assignment. It has now come to light that they were all sent to an address I had not resided at since 2001. The Student Loan Company was aware of my current address at the time that the alleged documents were sent.   I have always kept the Student Loan Company informed of my current address.   4. In point 18 the Claimant claims the Termination Notice issued on the 26/04/2017 was the cause of action, this is patently untrue - the termination notice does not determine the Statute of Limitations date.   Pursuing a debt after a 6 years is clear breach of OFT guidelines and CPUT.   5. Addressing points 21,22 and 23 - the claimant contends its unfair to allow a set aside 16 months after a default judgement, yet failed to issue a default notice within the 6 year limitation period therefore breaching the rules of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 87/88.   6. I the defendant, contend that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and
is STATUTE BARRED pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. 
If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.   7. The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £2489.03 or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied. 
   8. The defendant’s costs in dealing with the claimants default judgement and their set aside application to be paid by the claimant within 28 days.   (a separate costs sheet is attached).   Statement of Truth   I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   Signed: xxxx Dated: 17/05/2022   Costs Sheet Cost of N244 application form: £255.00      
    • Hi   I hope you are keeping as well as came be expected during this. and even if you want to rant here about this If A2 are still ignoring your letters/emails then that the Housing Ombudsman is now looking into this matter and have requested your evidence so far of their failure in Customer Cara and more importantly their own Complaints Procedure by failure to acknowledge letters/emails.   As you have already spoke to the Ombudsman I would contact them again and just explain to date A2 are still completely ignoring you with your complaint and you take this as a Breach of their own Complaints Procedure.   You look after yourself and even if you just want to have a rant about this to get this out your system you know where we are.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Kwikfit MOT - charged me for unnecessary work/parts - now IGNORING ME!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3002 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

After charging me 185 pounds upfront

Kwik fit calls me up and tells me I failed my MOT and asks me to shell out 655 pounds finally coming down to £480 .

This as communicated to me twice ( on the phone and when I went to collect my car)

were charges for making the minimum required changes for MOT.

After collecting my car, I discovered the next day that the bridge blades that I had been charged for, have not been changed.

Also the puncture in one of my tyre was never repaired ( in spite of being told that this will done for free).

An independent check with another mechanic confirmed that changes to the Brake Pad set (£85),

stabiliser link (£54 each),

brake disc (£66 each)

and check and front adjust ( £50) were never required.

When I complained, I found the area manager completely on the defensive,

offering only to refund me £130 pounds (for the non existent bridge blades and half of what I paid for the brake pad brade disk).

According to him it was my error for misunderstanding the repairs that had been only recommended

and had been done after my clearance.

Its been a week and I haven had anything from Kwikfit so far.


Ridiculous behaviour , coupled with dishonesty.

Please can you advise me who I can escalate this matter to ( OFT ?).

Any advice on this will be very helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly something we see here often


they need to tighten up on this type of short practice


I've alerted the kwikfit rep


hopefully it will be rsolved as this thread was





please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again: Stay clear of garages for your mot.

Use a dedicated mot centre which does not repair cars.

They have no reason to say that something is wrong when it's not.

Also you will be sure that you can shop around for any repair needed.

Other advise is to supervise the repair.

A genuine garage would have no objection on you viewing the work.

Even small garages now have a viewing area behind a glass.

Dump kwik fit for good!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,


We're sorry to hear this. Can you please e-mail [email protected] with 'Consumer Action Group 23/1/14' in the subject line and provide your vehicle registration number so we can locate your logged complaint and take a look into this for you.


Kind regards,

Kwik Fit Customer Service Team

[email protected]

Link to post
Share on other sites

After charging me 185 pounds upfront

An independent check with another mechanic confirmed that changes to the Brake Pad set (£85),

stabiliser link (£54 each),

brake disc (£66 each)

and check and front adjust ( £50) were never required.


What is a bridge blade?

How did the mechanic you took you car to know the pads, discs and link didn't require changing ??

Check and front adjust what ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So by them charging you, I assume you gave them the authorisation to do the work?


The amount quoted was on the basis that the MOT cannot be cleared without the necessary work. Again as I mentioned before the word "recommended" was never used. I had been puzzled as i do get my car checked every year. I took this back to the same garage that I had taken before. They showed me copies of the checks they had done previously, when I realised that I had been a fool for taking things on face value.


I have received the promised £130 pounds which has been cleverly split so as to show that the the refund is inclusive of VAT - helps them to offset this with what they will pay to the Government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible that you picked up another puncture in the two weeks of driving.


Of course its possible. In this case the company changed my front tyres and told me I had a puncture in the rear left tyre which they will repair for free. After filling the very same tyre with air for more than 2 occasions, I finally gave up, had it checked and replaced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount quoted was on the basis that the MOT cannot be cleared without the necessary work. Again as I mentioned before the word "recommended" was never used.


Could the expression they used have been "on the basis of a clear MOT" ? In other words an MOT Certificate with no 'advisories' - advisories are not in themselves fail items but are recommendations or warnings.


Even if this was so, it is playing with words and customers ignorance for their commercial gain.

Not very ethical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been a week now since I replied to the Kwickfit representative. Had no reply and I am not expecting any help from them either. Glad this forum exists and that I was able to share my experience with others. Think the company is now probably used to such compliants and takes its customers for granted

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think I am in the same position as you are, Kwik Fit are a total sham. I wont be using them again, I value my safety and that of those around me far too much to risk it by visiting cowboys like them.


I hope you get a resolution to your issues, I think I now have to make County Court Claim, which given how much of a toss they give, they probably wont contest or pay out on when they lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...