Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You can easily argue your case with no sign on the nearest parking sign
    • Same issue got a fine yesterday for parking in suspended bay which was ending at 6:30 yesterday, next thing I see a fine 15 minutes before it. The sign was obstructed 
    • Hi all, an update on the case as the deadline for filing the WS is tomorrow i.e., 14 days before the hearing date: 7th June. Evri have emailed their WS today to the court and to myself. Attached pdf of their WS - I have redacted personal information and left any redactions/highlights by Evri. In the main: The WS is signed by George Wood. Evri have stated the claim value that I am seeking to recover is £931.79 including £70 court fees, and am putting me to strict proof as to the value of the claim. Evri's have accepted that the parcel is lost but there is no contract between Evri and myself, and that the contract is with myself and Packlink They have provided a copy of the eBay Powered By Packlink Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) to support their argument the contractual relationship is between myself and Packlink, highlighting clause 3a, e, g of these T&Cs. They further highlight clause 14 of the T&Cs which states that Packlink's liability is limited to £25 unless enhanced compensation has been chosen. They have contacted Packlink who informed them that I had been in contact with Packlink and raised a claim with Packlink and the claim had been paid accordingly i.e., £25 in line with the T&Cs and the compensated postage costs of £4.82. They believe this is clear evidence that my contract is with Packlink and should therefore cease the claim against Evri. Evri also cite Clause 23 of the pre-exiting commercial agreement between the Defendant and Packlink, which states:  ‘Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 A person who is not a party to this Agreement shall have no rights under the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999 to rely upon or enforce any term of this Agreement provided that this does not affect any right or remedy of the third party which exists or is available apart from that Act.’ This means that the Claimant cannot enforce third party rights under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and instead should cease this claim and raise a dispute with the correct party.   Having read Evri's WS and considered the main points above, I have made these observations: Evri have not seen/read my WS (sent by post and by email) as they would have recognised the claim value is over £1000 as it includes court fees, trial fees, postage costs and interests, and there is a complete breakdown of the different costs and evidence. Evri accepts the parcel is lost after it entered their delivery network - again, this is in my WS and is not an issue in dispute. Evri mentions the £25 and £4.82 paid by Packlink - Again, had they read the WS, they would have realised this is not an issue in dispute. Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency   This supports the view that once a user (i.e, myself) selects a transport agency (i.e Evri) that best suits the user's needs, the user (i.e, myself) enters into a contract with the chosen transport agency (i.e, myself). Therefore, under the T&Cs, there is a contract between myself and Evri. Evri cites their pre-existing agreement with Packlink and that I cannot enforce 3rd party rights under the 1999 Act. Evri has not provided a copy of this contract, and furthermore, my point above explains that the T&Cs clearly explains I have entered into a contract when i chose Evri to deliver my parcel.  As explained in my WS, i am the non-gratuitous beneficiary as my payment for Evri's delivery service through Packlink is the sole reason for the principal contract coming into existence. Clearly Evri have not read by WS as the above is all clearly explained in there.   I am going to respond to Evri's email by stating that I have already sent my WS to them by post/email and attach the email that sent on the weekend to them containing my WS. However, before i do that, If there is anything additional I should further add to the email, please do let me know. Thanks. Evri Witness Statement Redacted v1 compressed.pdf
    • Thank you. I will get on to the SAR request. I am not sure now who the DCA are - I have a feeling it might be the ACI group but will try to pull back the letter they wrote from her to see and update with that once I have it. She queried it initially with 118 118 when she received the default notice I think. Thanks again - your help and support is much appreciated and I will talk to her about stopping her payments at the weekend.
    • you should email contact OCMC immediately and say you want an in person hearing.   stupid to not
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

2nd hand car - engine fault.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3611 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. This is my first post but I have used some valuable information from this site in the past.

 

I recently bought a Porsche 911 from what appeared to be a very reputable dealer. I had Porsche perform a 111 point inspection yesterday. They informed me of some serious engine problems and advised returning it. I called the dealer with this information and today I sent the following letter accompanying the inspection report, recorded delivery:

 

On 29th June 2014 I purchased, and took delivery of, the above vehicle from XXX. On 2nd July 2014 I discovered that it was not of satisfactory quality. This was highlighted by the report produced from Porsche East London after an official 111 point inspection (attached). Within the report Porsche indicated the following:

 

  • · Knocking noise from right-hand side of engine, suspected bore/piston issue. This was backed up by evidence of discolouration of left-hand side exhaust pipe caused by increased oil use on the right-hand engine bank
  • · Right-hand front coil road-spring snapped
  • · Brake pipe support bracket securing bolt snapped

It was also indicated, which I had experienced from day of purchase:

 

  • · Judder felt through steering when 1st applying brakes

Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 requires dealers to supply goods of satisfactory quality. However, the vehicle is clearly not of a satisfactory quality which is defined as free from minor defects, safe and durable for a reasonable length of time. You are therefore in breach of contract.

I am legally entitled to reject the vehicle and to be reimbursed for its full purchase price of £xxxxx. I will give you seven (7) days to reply to me accepting, unconditionally, my request in principle and advising me of a date by which I will receive payment. If you do not respond, or you do not respond positively within this time period, I shall send you a letter before action that will outline my intention to recover the full amount plus interest , costs and compensation through the Courts.

 

Once an agreement has been reached to the points contained within this letter, you are entitled to the return of the vehicle to your business premises (at your own expense).

 

If they ask to inspect the vehicle do I have to permit them to take it away or can I refuse and demand a refund? One final note, I paid for the majority of the vehicle on Credit Card to cover me under Consumer Credit Act.

 

Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the report is qualified by the dealer details on it, I can see no reason why he would want to have a look, he wont be able to deny any of the problems highlighted.

 

 

You do have the right of rejection and they do not have the right to insist on a repair or replacement. You can, of course have a repair done, but that will not cancel out your right to reject the car later at a later date.

If the engine problems are as the report says, I can't see them wanting to strip it and rebuild it.

 

 

How much was paid in cash ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you can reject the car or not will depend entirely on what age it is and how much you paid. A porsche is a sports car. It is likely the engine and box will have been thrashed regularly. The courts know this and will say if it was cheaper than average and/or had high miles you will have got wht you paid for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

· Knocking noise from right-hand side of engine, suspected bore/piston issue. This was backed up by evidence of discolouration of left-hand side exhaust pipe caused by increased oil use on the right-hand engine bank· Right-hand front coil road-spring snapped

· Brake pipe support bracket securing bolt snapped

It was also indicated, which I had experienced from day of purchase:

 

  • · Judder felt through steering when 1st applying brakes

Some of the above depends on how old the car is, how many miles it's done and what you actually paid for it.

Can YOU hear the knocking, is it immediately apparent?

The coil spring is not an expensive fix, but needs doing as soon as possible.

The brake pipe support bolt is minor

The juddering can only be worn discs - IF the car would pass an MOT and the juddering is only minor and the car is more than 5 years old it's probably par for the course.

As said a lot depends on the age, miles and price paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect conniff, I have sold more cars in a month than most people will drive in a lifetime. As such I have a good sound knowledge of consumer law in regards to used car sales. The start of an engine knock in a car that could of been 5% of it's new price would not be considered unsatisfactory quality. It simply means the customer has bought an old clunker at old clunker money with old clunker faults. After all the engine may well go on for a further 2 years before it needs work.

 

That is why I stated as has oddjobbob that to give a proper answer we would need to know the age, miles, model & price paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in my experience if the first thing a buyer does is take it to the main stealer for a free multi point inspection, it means the buyer is suffering buyers remorse and is hunting a reason to try and get out of the deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in my experience if the first thing a buyer does is take it to the main stealer for a free multi point inspection, it means the buyer is suffering buyers remorse and is hunting a reason to try and get out of the deal.

 

 

 

 

 

+1, all day long!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in my experience if the first thing a buyer does is take it to the main stealer for a free multi point inspection, it means the buyer is suffering buyers remorse and is hunting a reason to try and get out of the deal.

 

Speculation and completely incorrect. It was the perfect car. Had everything I wanted but it's a Porsche so I wanted to make sure it was all good before looking forward to a long and happy ownership. I should have had it inspected before hand but as it was a dealer rather than private I thought it would be fine to do it after. 997s are prone to bore scoring and I wanted to make sure it was fine. The 111 point inspection is very common and at £216 is not cheap. Car is an 05 plate with 76k. So average mileage. Model is Carreras S. I'm not going to say what I paid for it but it was market price. It was not discounted. I only paid around 5% by cash as this was the deposit. The responses I have received on here seem to assume I intentionally went out to return it. I didn't. I thought I had found the perfect car. Porsche were the ones to tell me initially that due to the problems and the very short ownership that it would be best to reject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP in the circumstances you describe, obviously NOT an old girl at old girl money, if its got an engine fault, take it back and get your money back.

 

 

Regarding the 'main dealer check' question, yes, I have had many occasions where someone has bought a car from me and then taken it for a main dealer (free) check over.

 

 

If it was within two weeks I just refunded them, you'd never make them happy, so what's the point?

 

 

After that though, I'd just state that I would take it for a fresh MOT at my own cost, and that if it passed the MOT then the government (NOT me!) were of the opinion that it was fit to be on the road, and goodbye.

 

 

However an engine knock on an expensive car is something else entirely and you could spend thousands putting it right (if ever...) so go and get your money back is by far the best thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...