Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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

Bought a faulty van from a trader?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3193 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

Hey guys,

 

Quick brief for you.

 

I bought a second hand van today from a dealer for £3700 + £740 VAT. I found it on autotrader the day before. There was no admittance of any fault in the ad. There hardly ever is on autotrader adverts.

 

I'm 30 miles from the dealership so it isn't too far from me. It seems that the gearbox crunches in 1st gear, which wasn't present during the test drive as it was a brief one. The van is a semi-automatic so it is a very situational fault whereby it only happens if I'm crawling slowly and the van decides to drop to 1st. There was little traffic during the test drive so the fault didn't appear during this time.

 

As I got closer to home the problem started happening. I bought the car from a trader who has 100+ cars in stock so they seemed very established.

 

My question is, where do I stand in this? - Am I able to get a refund or repair? - I feel disheartened as the van seemed perfect during the time of purchase but 30 minutes later I'm having gearbox issues. I haven't contacted the dealer yet as I would like your advice as to how I should proceed.

 

Thanks.

Edited by Kalahati
Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you advise me in discussing this with the dealer? - I'm not a fan of confrontation and I imagine these guys are well versed when it comes to situations like these and therefore know what to say to manipulate the situation to their liking?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you a business or was the van bought for personal use and insured as such ?

 

The van was registered to me and not to a business. The van was bought to move frozen food around and for my mother to drive as her current car just died. It's been insured via Directline as any other car would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you give a bit more info on the moving frozen food around pls, it can make a huge difference ?

 

 

By what you say it is insured for Social, Domestic & Pleasure and nothing else ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely sure on the insurance as my Father done it.

 

The frozen food is because my mother has a small burger van in an industrial estate. She was using an Audi Estate to bring the small bits and pieces she needs daily. The van will do this job now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The van would be more for commuting as such. She takes one bag with her full of utensils and a small box no higher than my shin with food. It's not filled to the brim or used to carry massive amounts of goods. Just a few bits of bacon, sausages, butter. Those kind of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just spoke to the guy on the phone and he has suggested that I should bring the van to them next week Tuesday, seems a bit far away but it's a fair request none the less.

 

Phone call was straight forward and pleasant. He said he spoke to his mechanic and that he said the gearboxes in these vans can be problematic as well as saying that they used the van themselves for a period of time and this fault wasn't present, strange. He said they may have to refer the van to the actual dealer (Renault) if they cannot pin-point the issue. There was no discussion as to whom will cover this cost. Is it fair to assume it will be them?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is a Renault van the gearbox is actually a manual one with some kind of robotic device strapped to the top to make it work as an automatic. I had one in a Renault trafic and it was nothing but trouble. Cost me £3000 in the end as no-one but Renault can fix the bits on the top that turn it into an automatic and it's them that usually fail. If you search google for Renault van automatic problems you will find lots of posts on the Renault forums. Good luck with the dealer, any hint of a problem and I would be rejecting ASAP!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I took the vehicle for repairs on the 26th May 2015 (Tuesday) to demonstrate the issue to the mechanic on a short test drive. He seemed convinced that it was simply my driving technique that caused the crunch despite the fact it's a semi automatic. After a while I think he realised that there is in fact an issue with the van. He said that the van will be seen by a Renault mechanic by 29th May 2015 the latest.

 

I called today and was told it is now booked in for the coming Tuesday (2nd June 2015). It's causing me an inconvenience at this point as I feel this issue may drag on unnecessarily. I'm not at all blaming the trader of intentionally selling me a faulty van but I'm just not prepared to have to go through all these loops and hoops.

 

I have 3 days remaining until it'll be a solid 2 weeks since the purchase date. What are my rights in asking for a refund under SOGA whilst maintaining a fair and understanding relationship with the dealer?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sod the fair and understanding relationship with the seller, you can bet your life he knew there was a problem with it at the time of sale and if he didn't then he should have.

Seems to me you are one of the pushovers that car dealers love, don't be.

 

 

Write them a letter giving them five working days ie until this Friday coming and tell them that if it is not fixed, you will formally reject the van for a full refund. Go there this afternoon and leave the letter at the desk.

 

 

Don't pussy foot around, they know what they are doing. Firstly denying there is anything wrong and now keeping you hanging on for an answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply buddy. My concern here is keeping a smooth relationship between the trader and I. I agree that I may be somewhat pussy footing, but this is in an effort to not introduce hate in to the mixture as the trader can drag this out as long as he legally can, which will cause further inconvenience to me.

 

I will do as you advise, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't inferring that you swear etc, just be firm with no please or polite requests. Mention SOGA and give him the five days and no more.

 

 

It matters not if you make him coffee or clean his shoes, it won't change his attitude which is to keep the money you have paid him and do nothing in return, this is how car dealers work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a reply from the trader and here are some relevant extracts from the e-mail:

 

Having left the van with us we would of course said we would be in touch to give you an update as soon as we had some valid news. No specific dates were mentioned.

 

We tested the van ourselves and could not find fault in the way the van should be driven given that it has an automatic gearbox.

 

This gearbox has no syncro in first gear and consequently should not be changed down manually from 2nd gear to 1st whilst the car is moving as you appear to do.

 

To satisfy everyone we then booked the car into a Renault Main Agent for the gearbox to be tested and reported on. The earliest date available was Tuesday 2nd June.

 

I feel there is no reason to return your money as all issues are being dealt with.

 

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems comprehensive but no reason why they couldn't have contacted you saying nothing to report as yet. You should ask for a copy of the Renault Agent test report which must be on proper dealer headed paper and with their stamp on it.

 

 

If indeed the first gear is non syncro, then you will have to change your driving habit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what confuses me. I spoke to a gearbox specialist and a local garage just to confirm what the trader said.

 

I was told that it does have a synchro for first gear and that this gearbox is the same as the manual gearbox internally.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that one should drive in such a way to accommodate a mechanical fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely convinced that one should drive in such a way to accommodate a mechanical fault.

 

 

No you shouldn't. Go to the nearest dealer and without mentioning why, ask them. Even phone around the country to some main dealers and ask. If it does have syncro first, and I can't think of any other vehicle that doesn't, then call their bluff and demand

a refund within 48 hours with a thread of court action if they don't.

 

 

Are you out of pocket on anything else in connection with the van ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no other loss other than time and fuel having to return the vehicle back to them.

 

The van has been seen by main Renault garage and it seems that they have diagnosed the vehicle as faultless. I am beyond confused.

 

The trader up to this point as been constantly telling me that it is I who is inducing the fault by changing the gearbox myself manually when I have expressed numerous times that I was simply emulating what the van does in automatic.

 

I've been consulting the Renault forums and they all believe that the gearbox is failing or isn't operating as it should. A crunch should not be felt or heard during downshifts.

 

The dealer said I shouldn't force the gearbox down from 2nd to 1st despite it does it in automatic mode. This is what a forum member said in regards to that (and other extracts):

 

"It's supposed to change into 1st at speeds less than 7 km about 4/5 mph."

 

"I cant believe it does not have synchro on first, don't think I have seen a car/light commercial in the last 30 years that did not have synchro on first and anyway its the box that's changing down not you."

 

"No. Nothing to do with your driving style. Box failing."

 

As I have said earlier, I have consulted a gearbox specialist (specifically these gearboxes) and a local garage to me who performs manual conversions on these vans and they have both confirmed that first gear does have a synchro and that it is probably damaged, or possible the synchro hub.

 

I have formally rejected the car, admittedly via e-mail only as to see if the trader would address this or to see if he would purposely infringe my rights by having me believe otherwise. I know the van is busted but he is telling me that I should collect within reasonable time.

 

It doesn't help when a Renault garage is saying it's faultless but what makes me suspicious is that he values the Renault diagnosis over my own sources as "they are the ones who manufacture the product" despite the necessary experience my sources have. The garage can be just as clueless as anyone else, it's not as if the employees as this Renault garage are the individuals who have personally designed, engineered and manufactured this vehicle.

 

I'm at a loss of what to do. I'm not collecting a gearbox crunching van .

Edited by Kalahati
Link to post
Share on other sites

You really should accompany someone on the test drive to prove your point. Try another dealer or do you actually have proof that the van was checked out by a Renault dealer ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have proof that Renault has inspected the van. I have requested a copy of the report. I have no other choice but to accept back a broken van. The trader wins this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he doesn't win. That's how these hammy car sales win because people just give in. ' You' take it to a dealer and get a report, if it comes out in your favour, and there was a charge by the dealer, then you bill the seller for a refund and repair or you reject for a full refund and the report cost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...