Motor Trader Issues on vehicle functions. Small Court Claim now issued ** Full Refund Given **

[poor-boy]

More reason than ever to get a letter before action off to them.

 

Would there be a way to word the letter or determine how they would be responsible? As they state the Visa Debit chargeback is not law and only a scheme put together by the banks etc..

 

Thanks

[Conniff]

It's not put together by the banks pg, it was put together by Visa. NO it isn't law like credit cards. You could drop a complaints email to Visa big boss [email protected] and see if he responds.

 

 

I would say that you know they are not bound by law but you have given them all the evidence required to reject the car and get a full refund. To date, the dealer has refused.

 

 

Have you contacted Trading Standards ?

[poor-boy]

It's not put together by the banks pg, it was put together by Visa. NO it isn't law like credit cards. You could drop a complaints email to Visa big boss [email protected] and see if he responds.

 

 

I would say that you know they are not bound by law but you have given them all the evidence required to reject the car and get a full refund. To date, the dealer has refused.

 

 

Have you contacted Trading Standards ?

 

I will send an email to Visa's big boss and ask why put a scheme together and then let the banks decide after sending them all the evidence that there is nothing they can do - why waste my time and resources.

 

Trading standards have been contacted via Consumer Rights and are always forwarded on the copies of letters including copies of the signed for evidence from Royal Mail.

 

I am going to be writing to the bank again and advising them that after the letter of action the retailer decided to write me an email but is refusing to accept the vehicle or put right the faults stated in the engineers report.

[rebel11]

Hi Poor Boy

 

When you write to the bank again, in your letter state that they are in breach of BCOBS, they shouldn't treat you 'unfairly'.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?826-How-Can-BCOB-Protect-You-From-Your-Bank-s-Unfair-Treatmen

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?849-BCOBS-Round-up-Making-your-bank-treat-you-failry

 

 

I will send an email to Visa's big boss and ask why put a scheme together and then let the banks decide after sending them all the evidence that there is nothing they can do - why waste my time and resources.

 

Trading standards have been contacted via Consumer Rights and are always forwarded on the copies of letters including copies of the signed for evidence from Royal Mail.

 

I am going to be writing to the bank again and advising them that after the letter of action the retailer decided to write me an email but is refusing to accept the vehicle or put right the faults stated in the engineers report.

[poor-boy]

Just read some reviews regarding the company -

 

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=central+motor+company

[Conniff]

Exactly what I would expect of a review about a secondhand car sales.

[Jam_Buttie]

Any updates on this?

[poor-boy]

Since the email they sent me, I have since sent a forth letter putting the company to strict proof regarding the alleged "fair wear and tear" and a copy of the bill of sale with the alleged faults.

 

If you read the email (above in blue) they state there were no faults but then state they advised me of the faults.. Confused!!

 

I am pressing forward with court action and let the courts decide if I have 'unrealistic expectations'.

[poor-boy]

Right - Have spoken to the bank and as the trader wrote "sold as seen" on the invoice the bank can not do anything.

[Jam_Buttie]

But the fact they advertised it as having Sat nav and being 170bhp should mean something?

[poor-boy]

The bank state 'NO' - They state that as the invoice stated "sold as seen" they can not do anything about it even if the advert stated 170BHP and the vehicle is manufactured as 140BHP.

 

They want me to send them a rolling road report to prove the BHP although they have been advised the vehicle has no power to even drive under its own steam on the public road due to turbo failure.

 

Oh and as it is a used vehicle they can not take the matter any further.

[Conniff]

It is a criminal offence for a business to make an attempt to limit a consumers statutory rights. One way of limiting a consumers rights is to write, "sold as seen" on a bill of sale. There is no such thing between a business and a consumer.

 

 

The bank staff have no idea or they are fobbing you off. They have no right to say this, it is not just misleading, but lies.

 

 

Your next move has to be court.

 

 

Who is your bank ??

Edited January 8, 2015 by Conniff

[poor-boy]

The bank is HSBC and the vehicle traders bank is also HSBC, I have logged a complaint with the bank too as they do not understand the consumer protection regulations 2008 but instead advised they follow the Visa regulations and I am not allowed a copy of this.

 

I am taking this to court without doubt as it has now gone on long enough.

[Conniff]

Why not drop an email to the top - [email protected] - explaining and see what he has to say.

 

 

I wouldn't make it too long an email or he might not read it, you know what these people are like.

[Conniff]

Also, drop a line to Visa. [email protected] saying your bank refuses to show you a copy of Visa terms and conditions of operation. You can also mention that HSBC are refusing to do a chargeback even though you have shown them proof this was an unlawful transaction.

[poor-boy]

Conniff - cheers buddy, I have also forwarded my communication log of emails / calls to [email protected] in the hope that someone contacts me so fingers crossed.

[poor-boy]

As an update - The PA of Visa CEO has contacted me and is looking into the banks tactics to avoid / fob me off.

 

To save beating round the bush with the non cooperative seller claiming all the faults are wear and tear (yes even the BHP although the car was manufactured as 140BHP and not the 170BHP they claimed) - I have issued court papers.

[Conniff]

Absolutely, no point in waiting.

 

 

Expect some messing ie no response / set aside and all that crap from them as motor sellers seem to be schooled in frustrating and dragging out court claims as long as possible.

[poor-boy]

I think they might too and I have stated in the court papers that the seller has failed to communicate in a timely manner or any if so.

[poor-boy]

Right.. The bank have written me a letter advising that the faults are due to age and general usage and the independent report relates to wear and tear issues that would be present in a used car from 2007.

 

I am going to write back to them putting them under strict proof to provide evidence on their decision.

[Conniff]

I can't understand their reluctance as it's not the bank that will be paying out anything, they will reclaim it from the dealer.

[poor-boy]

Right all, Sorry I have been busy with other things but at the same time have still been chasing this up and questioning the bank.

 

Attached is a letter from the bank stating they can not do anything as the car was "sold as seen" and I had the opportunity to test drive the car, the bank have also stated the make / model are correct and the independent report from the garage relates to "wear and tear" and not faults.

 

See here - http://s1120.photobucket.com/user/poor-boy/media/HSBCLetter08012015.jpg.html

 

I have decided to reply and put the bank to "strict proof" and to provide evidence of their alleged findings. (my letter is in blue writing)

 

 

Dear Vina Patel

 

I write in reference to the letter concerning my dealings with CENTRAL MOTOR COMPANY.

I disagree with your decision and statement made advising “Under the visa rules and regulations” as your response is fictional with no evidence or facts provided to back up the statement.

 

I am going to respond in stages and will be putting you to strict proof to provide evidence on the aforementioned regarding your assessment to my claim, the response from yourself seems to be based on opinion / fictional and not facts. Currently HSBC are attempting to violate my consumer rights under the Banking Code of practises (the practises are available internally to you)

 

1) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence of the visa rules and regulations particular to my claim that you have referred to.

 

2) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence of the terminology “Seen” as stated in your letter.

3) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that the mentioned faults were not “laying” and were not covered up by CENTRAL MOTOR COMPANY. (Defective)

4) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that the vehicle was advertised “true” and in accordance with its make/model/ variants and all defects were stated in the advert including the correct Brake Horse Power the vehicle was manufactured with. (The vehicle was manufactured as 140BHP and not the 170BHP Central Motor Company advertised as *Mis-advertised*)

5) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that the independent report provided relates to “wear and tear issues” and not mandatory defects i.e there was no human intervention to remove internals of the DPF that is required by law. (The independent report states “faults” and not “general wear and tear”) (Defective)

 

6) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence of your mechanical qualifications and what tests you carried out to state the faults are alleged wear and tear.

7) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that the retailer mentioned all wear and tear in the advert to comply with consumer protection from unfair trading regulations 2008. (Mis-advertised)

8) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that seller had stated in the advert that satellite navigation is broken and not working. (Mis-advertised)

9) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that you have looked at the copy of advert from the retailer that stated “Looks amazing and nothing that detracts the overall and excellent condition of this vehicle – A very smooth tight drive” but as you will find in the independent report the statement of the advert is far from the truth. (Mis-advertised)

 

10) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that a short test drive of around ¾’s of a mile is sufficient to highlight all factual faults.

 

11) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that after paying £5300.00 for a vehicle it is justifiable to spend £5648.31 to correct the defects or your alleged general wear and tear.

 

I have requested a copy of the visa rules and regulations particular to my claim from HSBC but nothing has been made available to myself to date. I have provided you with an independent factual report from a garage whom carry out mechanical repairs on vehicles on a daily basis with over 25yrs experience within the trade and are regulated by VOSA.

 

I look forward to receiving your full and accurate response within the next 7 days from the date of this letter.

 

Regards

XXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

Please find attached -

Copy of the advert from the seller

Independent report from XXXXXXXXXXX (Garage Name Removed).

Copy of V5 (log book) stating 103kilowats (140BHP)

Copy of an extract from Wikipedia stating 103Kilowatts (140BHP)

Copy of the service history book stating 103Kilowatts (140BHP)

Charge back claim letter to be actioned within 14days from the date of this letter / request.

 

 

 

I understand my response may sound aggressive or not professional but I just don't seem to find the logic behind sending them all the information they require and they then miss out all the important details.

 

I still have Visa Europe looking into this also and have contacted the bank asking them to provide evidence of what they have done to determine their decision.

 

I have issued court proceedings and the retailer has till the end of the month to reply due to the 14 day rule and then I can request judgement.

[Conniff]

Nothing wrong in getting a bit aggressive when they continue to fob you off. I like it, lets see what they come back with.

[oddjobbob]

This should in theory be an easy court win. It is not the car that was in the ad, it is 140BHP not 170BHP and will not tow your CARAVAN which is precisely what you bought it for didn't you?

[poor-boy]

This should in theory be an easy court win. It is not the car that was in the ad, it is 140BHP not 170BHP and will not tow your CARAVAN which is precisely what you bought it for didn't you?

 

 

Yes and that's the truth