Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

Have been sold a car with suspicious MOT


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3655 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, my other half bought a Land Rover a week ago on 18/04/14. It has 12 months MOT on it but when he has gone to see a land rover specialist, they have said the car should never have past MOT and is unfit for road with the amount of rust on it (even has holes on the wheel arches when you open the door its rusted that bad). He has been in touch with the MOT garage and they have said they will do all the work for free but when he rang the dealer that sold it him he went mad at him saying it was nothing to do with him. Can any one shed some light on where we go with the dealer that sold it him because surely he is in the wrong for selling us a car unfit for road use. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it back as being not fit for purpose and not of merchantable quality. Demad a full refund. you may ahve to leave the vehicle but you cant drive it anyway so no loss there. warn the dealer that you will be seeking to recover any additional costs incurred between now and when he pays up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply. When he rang him he said hes not taking it back for a refund as it has 12 months mot on it and to him there was nothing wrong with it! But I think he was in on the bent mot so he didn't have to pay for the work to be done before selling it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say this is more down to the garage, not the dealer.

 

Worth reporting it to VOSA, and get them to test it again at the same garage, if they find major issues (which they sure will), then the MOT garage / tester will get punished for it. No wonder the garage are offering to fix it for free!!

 

Perhaps offer to sell it to the garage? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Threaten to get vosa involved then do it anyway.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont ring and ask, you go round and demand, leaving a letter with the dealer saying exactly what the problem is and making it clear that it is your right under the SoGA to have a full refund as you dont accept the goods because of the reasonds given..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love these posts from people who say get VOSA involved having never seen the car involved. If it's a Land Rover on a ladder chassis then it can have holes in the bodywork. Makes little or no effect to the rigidity of the vehicle.

 

Which land rover is it first????????????

 

Again people jump to conclusions before the full facts are known.

Link to post
Share on other sites

helios, please read the first post again.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

heliosuk,

 

What's the problem with reporting to VOSA ???????????????? (My post #6, JoeyJoeC #7 and renegadeimp #8 )

 

Seeing as the OP states that an Independent Land Rover specialist has said the car is unroadworthy. (See post #1)

 

I would have thought reporting to VOSA was very good advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love these posts from people who say get VOSA involved having never seen the car involved. If it's a Land Rover on a ladder chassis then it can have holes in the bodywork. Makes little or no effect to the rigidity of the vehicle.

 

Which land rover is it first????????????

 

Again people jump to conclusions before the full facts are known.

 

Sorry but this is a support and advice forum. People offer advice based on what the OP has posted. Based on what the OP posted, mentioning a specialist has inspected the vehicle, it would be worth taking it up with VOSA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then perhaps the OP will state what Land Rover it is???? Perhaps also age and mileage plus price paid???

 

Rust is very subjective and there are clear guidelines as to what is acceptable and what is not. A general rule is excessive corrosion within a set distance of a load bearing area. Wings do not necessarily fall under this.

 

Like I say, people jump to conclusions so perhaps a bit more from the OP first?

 

This is a support and advice forum as you point out but it needs to be good advice and support based on more detailed facts rather than loose canons going off!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then perhaps the OP will state what Land Rover it is???? Perhaps also age and mileage plus price paid???

 

Like I say, people jump to conclusions so perhaps a bit more from the OP first?!

 

heliosuk,

With all due respect to a fellow CAGGER (No insult intended or implied)

 

What has the "Model, age, milage and price got to do with it ???

The car is "unroadworthy"........ Independent Land Rover specialist.

Trying to advise OP correctly, Going on Post # 1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Garages have higher standards for vehicle inspections than what is required for a MOT. The MOT standard is a low minimum that's not much above what would be considered scrap.

 

The definitive opinion as to the vehicles MOT condition would be that of VOSA, not of a garage who habitually use a service standard rather than people who are trained to inspect to the MOT standard using MOT inspection methods and tools.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...