Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
  • 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

Car Lease Completion Charge


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3685 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 there. Wonder if anyone can offer any advice on the following. I recently leased a mini on a three month short term lease, which was allowed to roll month to month. I ended up having the vehicle for 9 months. The lease came to an abrupt end when the clutch went.

Through my own insurance i had the vehicle towed back to by home. The leasing company then organized the pick up and the car was taken to Mini Assist to assess the damage.

I was told to wait for the report before deciding if I had any bills to pay. A month passes and a bill for close to 2k was issued, as the clutch had to be replaced.

Apparently I have to pay the lot of this, even though the report doesn't categorically state this was due to driver error, and doesn't take into account the previous state of the clutch, and doesn't take into account previous drivers of the vehicle and accumulative damage before i even started driving it. Wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this bearing in mind the following:

1. I was still charged for this period where all of the works on the vehicle were undertook.

2. I was never invited to view the damage or see any photos of the damage (although photos were sent subsequently, long after repairs were completed)

3. I was never consulted about perhaps getting a second opinion, or seeking a much more reasonably priced repair (if there was one)

 

Basically the vehicle was taken out of my hands, repairs were done, and the bill arrived.

I'd be grateful for any initial thoughts on this.

Thanks GL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi gerlep. What does the lease contract say about wear and tear ?

 

 

I can't see how this can be your responsibility, that's the whole idea with leasing.

I will reread the contract and get back to you. This is the thing. I have always leased cars for this reason. Yes there is sometimes a charge at the end of it I get that, but this just seemed way too much. My assumption, was that if you are a lease company you should be set up, insurance wise to protect yourself from this, so not risk losing out of it. To pass the bill 100% on to the driver seems crazy. Thanks for your initial response, will get back.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a c&p from the leasing company. Me then them.

 

 

ME: Regarding the outstanding bills for the damage to the vehicle. I appreciate you paid for the repairs to get the vehicle back on the road again for hire.

 

 

That said, I am very unhappy that this bill has been left for me to settle. I am unconvinced that the level of damage to the clutch can entirely be accredited to me. Last time I spoke to you before Christmas you were going to reach out to the owner to see if some insurance could cover this, did this happen?

 

 

Also I am completely stunned that a short term vehicle leasing company isn't covered for a contingency like this via insurance. Furthermore you have gone ahead and done all these repairs to the clutch and bumpers etc, and not once was I consulted or shown pictures of previous damage for me to verify.

If you truly think we are liable for this, we should have been given the opportunity to have our own quotes, repairs and possible insurance coverage.

I read the initial report which you sent me, and it doesn't say 'driver abuse'.

 

 

 

Their response:

 

 

 

 

cleardot.gif

 

 

 

profile_mask2.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is unfortunate that you were abroad whilst the rectification of the clutch occurred as had you been in the UK you could have viewed the damage yourself and spoken to the technicians at Hexagon Mini.

 

 

As promised I contacted Hexagon Mini, Mini UK and the supplier on several occasions in order to offer a complete explanation as to why the clutch and flywheel failed.

Once these parts had been stripped by technicians the garage checked all possibilities as the vehicle comes with a 3 year warranty and I told them that given the vehicles age and mileage it must be down to part failure thereby being covered by the 3 year comprehensive manufacturers warranty.

Their findings confirmed that there was no fault with any part within the clutch and flywheel assembly from new and the flywheel and the 'total disintegration' of the said parts was very unusual and 100% down to driver abuse.

I then asked Mini for a percentage contribution towards the repair costs which they flatly refused due to the way the clutch had been 'ridden' and photographs would confirm this. They also welcomed any visual inspection of the parts they had to replace. Once we received the photos we were in no doubt that their report was 100% correct.

We at Cocoon then took the decision to get all repairs completed as soon as possible to avoid further financial cost to both you, and us for rental hire days that would need to be continually billed until completion.

I have explored every avenue regarding claiming against the manufacturers warranty provided but all my efforts were not appreciated due to the cause of the problem.

We even considered moving the vehicle from London as labour rates are higher there but as the vehicle was undriveable the vehicle would have to have been trailered and the associated costs were virtually identical and therefore no saving could be made.

The only thing I can suggest is that once our final invoice has been settled you are quite within your rights to take the matter up directly with the garage and Mini but obviously costs could escalate further with no guarantee of success.

I will forward all the photos onto you for you to review. Please feel free to come back to me if you require any further information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a dual mass flywheel problem which I think is a known issue on certainminis but cannot be sure. Goofle mini and dual mass flywheel. If your car matches that of the complaints then there is something to go on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a dual mass flywheel problem which I think is a known issue on certainminis but cannot be sure. Goofle mini and dual mass flywheel. If your car matches that of the complaints then there is something to go on.
Thanks for that tip off. I did do a quick google and there seems to be a few folk out there with similar issues to mine.

Things are beginning to make sense to me now, this was a reasonably new car with not a lot of miles on the clock, and I am a driver with experience driving manual cars. I've never worn out a clutch before.

Now I feel that the leasing company have acted hastily, as they wanted their vehicle back on the road, so in a way I don't blame them, but it has suddenly struck me that not once was I asked for my version of the story. In fact the first conversation i had with the leasing co, and before the vehicle was checked thoroughly, the phrases 'driver abuse' and 'clutch ridden' were used, as if they were trying to prepare me for the worst. Well now I have a sufficient enough doubt that there was something not right with this car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone offer any advice where I can take this to? I have now done sufficient research, and based on my own ability as a driver believe that this is an unfair bill being handed to me? Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry to bump this again. I have collated all the info, contract details etc. The contract weighs in the favour of the leasing company, however, the one thing they haven't taken into account, is my ability as a driver, and the fact this clutch/flywheel was worn out in less than 5000 miles. Would it be appropriate for me to write to the leasing company and outline all of my objections? I know they will just hit back with their account and it will be stalemate. Looking for an independent body where i can take this case, any advice>? Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can they prove the state of the flywheel before you took over driving the car? Do they have before and after pictures? Surely this is the only way they can attribute the damage to yourself.

 

I would appeal to the lease company, they are the ones trying to bill you. The garage isn't your responsibility as you didn't pick them.

 

I would sent them an appeal, without settling saying that you don't think you should be paying and the basis of that is:

 

Can they provide before and after pictures, clearly showing the damage to the flywheel too place during your stint of ownership. Who had the car before yourself?

 

Your previous leasing history which I assume would show no damage to the cars you leased before.

 

The research you have in regards to flywheels being a common fault on minis. Surely this is enough reasonable doubt as to the fault being 100% down to driver error.

 

If they try to take it any further, then surely these points are basis enough for decent defence.

 

Could CAB possibly take on the matter for you and make contact with the leasing company? What about the fsa?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can they prove the state of the flywheel before you took over driving the car? Do they have before and after pictures? Surely this is the only way they can attribute the damage to yourself.

 

I would appeal to the lease company, they are the ones trying to bill you. The garage isn't your responsibility as you didn't pick them.

 

I would sent them an appeal, without settling saying that you don't think you should be paying and the basis of that is:

 

Can they provide before and after pictures, clearly showing the damage to the flywheel too place during your stint of ownership. Who had the car before yourself?

 

Your previous leasing history which I assume would show no damage to the cars you leased before.

 

The research you have in regards to flywheels being a common fault on minis. Surely this is enough reasonable doubt as to the fault being 100% down to driver error.

 

If they try to take it any further, then surely these points are basis enough for decent defence.

 

Could CAB possibly take on the matter for you and make contact with the leasing company? What about the fsa?

Hi there thanks for coming back so quickly, really appreciate it. I will write to the leasing company first off, and see how they come back. Cheers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool let us know what they come back with, I really don't see how they can have reasonable doubt the damage was down to you. The damage could been done by the last owner, just as much as you if you haven't been riding the clutch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...