Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. 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 only contracted 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. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
      • 160 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

Rights after car MOT'd incorrectly **I WON!!**


aw6188
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3567 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 all,

 

Had my car (oldish worth

 

It failed on front brake imbalance, and corroded/worn discs on the front.

 

Garages quote was extortionate (when isnt it :!:) so I got somewhere else to do the work at a 1/3 of the price.

 

Car was in today for another MOT as it exceeded the retest deadline, and it has failed.

 

I turned up at the garage, they said the rear brakes were shot and needed replacing, I asked why this wasnt picked up on 1st test & they tried fobbing me off that:

 

1st answer - I had broke it driving it to/from the garage

2nd answer - It had broke on my drive

3rd answer - the mechanic who fitted front brakes broke it

 

So the garage showed me on rolling road that the rear right brake wasnt stopping the wheel, whereas the left was. He didnt know why without taking the wheel off etc. He showed me the readings on the computer and said that was a fail.

 

I then asked to see the results from the first test which he uhm'd and ah'd about because it was going to take him "forever".

 

When he found them, he found that the 1st tester has since been sacked, and on the first test he had found the right rear brake was faulty - had recorded it on his test sheet but not transferred to the MOT refusal form which I was given.

 

I was therefore only quoted for work to the front brakes.

 

The guy changed from me being at fault to being apologetic at this point and has said he will "sort it" whatever that means.

 

Question is - where do I stand?

 

The car being worth what it is, I have already paid out for 2 x MOT's, front discs/pads fitted, amongst other bits and bobs & the tax is due at the end of the month. If this repair costs another £50 - £100 (which knowing the garage quote it will be!) I would have originally considered scrapping the car and getting something else.

 

I have therefore wasted the front discs/pads and an MOT if this is the case.

 

Having all the work done at the same time would have also cost me less than having two visits.

 

Are they liable to fix this issue, or anything like that?

 

My main worry is if I had taken it back during the retest period, would they have passed it and only tested "the fault" which was front brakes.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially the MOT test only tests the items on that specific day.

 

It could be a brake lever or cable has now seized in the intervening time.

 

Had it gone back within the retest period only the failure items would be inspected and a partial retest fee applied.

 

To answer the question, no they are not liable to do anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially the MOT test only tests the items on that specific day.

 

It could be a brake lever or cable has now seized in the intervening time.

 

Had it gone back within the retest period only the failure items would be inspected and a partial retest fee applied.

 

To answer the question, no they are not liable to do anything.

 

so says a motor trader

 

urm.......

 

 

dx

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

Graham (above) isn't wrong, except that they've already said it was faulty on the first test.

 

 

To be fair all round they should fix the rear brake problem for you with free labour and you buy the parts - you can't expect 'betterment' ie the car to be better than it was with brand new parts fitted over your existing secondhand ones.

 

 

Rear brakes often seize and its not normally a big job to free them off

Link to post
Share on other sites

so says a motor trader

 

urm.......

 

 

dx

 

I am indeed a member of the motor trade. I started on the tools before I even left school. I have worked hard and make a reasonable living doing often 60 or 70 hours a week.

 

With this in mind wouldn't it perhaps imply I know the rules, laws and different legislation regarding motor trading better than most? Why is my response to the question, which is exactly what the MOT test certificate & VOSA will confirm, being met with derision?

Link to post
Share on other sites

there does seem to be something amiss in the paperwork there

 

"When he found them, he found that the 1st tester has since been sackedlink3.gif, and on the first test he had found the right rear brake was faulty - had recorded it on his test sheet but not transferred to the MOT refusal form which I was given."

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Should the vehicle fail, you will be issued with a VT3O Certificate stating the items causing the failure of the MOT test. Make sure that you are clear as to what rectification is required for a pass to be issued. In certain cases expert or special services may be required regarding emissions or welding."

 

It appears this was not completed properly.

 

Id be asking for a free retest at least.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there does seem to be something amiss in the paperwork there

 

 

 

I agree it is odd. But MOT testers like everyone else are human. He may of missed adding it to the VT30 by mistake. It could also be that whoever you spoke to on the day of the current test was giving the OP some flannel to get rid of him.

 

But whatever way it is dressed up. On the day the car was presented for a full test, The rear brake wasn't operating on one side. It wasn't submitted for a retest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am indeed a member of the motor trade. I started on the tools before I even left school. I have worked hard and make a reasonable living doing often 60 or 70 hours a week.

 

With this in mind wouldn't it perhaps imply I know the rules, laws and different legislation regarding motor trading better than most? Why is my response to the question, which is exactly what the MOT test certificate & VOSA will confirm, being met with derision?

 

 

 

As former motor dealer myself Graham I can tell you that the 'opposing' view is not always liked on here, but, hey ho, its a public forum, so why not?

 

 

There is a tendency on here for many posters attitude to posters with motortrade problems to say 'SOGA is the way forward, take them to court, you'll win' etc.

 

 

Which is far from being the way forward all the time.

 

 

The car trade has a very poor reputation, and this was rightly deserved in many cases: but the schemers and crooks don't last long, although new ones do spring up. Any motor dealer worth his salt knows that the trick to a successful business is REPEAT business: that's true from the bloke that cleans your windows to apple computers. Sadly the charlatans in the motor trade don't see it this way. There are as many crooks among the general public who will try and part exchange a car with a buggered gearbox / engine etc without telling you, I could give loads of examples.

 

 

Anyway often the best way forward is to negotiate quietly and decently with whoever is involved and be sensible and fair about the outcome.

 

 

Unfortunately nothing today is ever viewed as being your own fault. Commonsense should tell you that if you pay £995 for a car that is now 18 years old and originally cost £22000 then it won't be like new. But some buyers expect it to be so. (although it should be roadworthy, unless sold for spares and repair)

 

 

Also you were quite correct, it does state all over an MOT that it is only valid on the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey well done

 

dx

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

Glad you got such a nice result OP. Kudos also to the garage for going above and beyond. Perhaps the forum will let you name the garage? Sounds as if they deserve praise.

 

Nice to hear such a sensible statement oddjobbob. Sadly especially now in the days of the internet, we hear of the tales of woe and how bad motor traders are. But in reality people will gladly complain to all and sundry about bad service but reluctant to highlight good service. The truth is the vast majority are more than fair to deal with. As you say if they weren't they wouldn't be in business long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...