Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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

Used Car mis-sold? Outstanding safety recall


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2817 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, I am hoping someone can give me a bit of advice regarding a car that I purchased recently that I believe was mis-sold to me due to there being an outstanding safety recall that was not disclosed at the time of sale.

 

Here is a more complete background to my story...

 

I purchased a Vauxhall Zafira recently from a local dealer and a couple of weeks later discovered that the car had a safety recall issued on it due to a risk of fire. I was not informed of this when I purchased the car. I would not have bought the car had I known.

 

I have written to the dealer to complain and he stated that basically it is not his problem and that I should have known about it. I then wrote back to explain why I believed that the car was mis-sold and have recently had contact from his lawyer stating that the car did not have an outstanding recall (which it does) and that there are no advisories on using the car as normal. Vauxhall have advised me not to use the heater or blower motor and if it is absolutely necessary only use them on settings 0 or 4.

 

Having looked into it myself I have found guidelines from the DVSA that state that dealers should not sell cars with outstanding safety recalls on them titled "A guide to safety recalls in the used vehicle industry". Within the guidelines it states:

 

"The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 covers the areas of product liability and consumer protection in the United Kingdom."

 

"The distributor shall act with due care in order to help ensure compliance with the applicable safety requirements and in particular he…shall not expose or possess for supply or offer or agree to supply, or supply, a product to any person which he knows or should have presumed, on the basis of information in his possession and as a professional, is a dangerous product” DVSA considers that this identifies that a product with an outstanding safety recall should not be passed to a consumer. Producers and distributors are professionals in their field and should therefore be fully aware that safety recalls exist and that they can occur on any product. DVSA believes that this paragraph applies to the supply of used products in the automotive sector."

 

Having spoken to his lawyer and informing him of the outstanding safety recall he is saying that he still believes that the dealer has done nothing wrong.

 

My question to anyone more knowledgeable than me on such matters is do you believe that I have been mis-sold the vehicle and would I stand a chance by taking it to small claims. I appreciate this is a long post but any information would be greatly received and appreciated.

 

Thank You in advance

 

LBG

Edited by Lbg123
Editing due to formatting issues
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have moved your thread into the - Motoring - Motoring subforums - General Motoring Issues section Lbg.

 

You say you bought it recently, can you tell us the exact date please ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst it is true the recall is free there are other reasons for not wanting the car such as the massive depreciation in value and almost double the cost of insurance.

 

Also the thought of having my wife and 4 kids in the car knowing that these fires still occur after the recall has taken place does not fill me with confidence.

 

Like I said, I would not have purchased this car had I known of the outstanding recall

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without looking when I get home tonight I can not give an exact date but it was towards the end of April. I will look and update the post accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The recall will be free from Vauxhall

 

Just book it in, get it done, and move on with your life.

This contains some reasonably good advice but it is also unhelpfully abrupt.

 

You probably also have a basis for rejecting the car as well.

Their lawyer is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could have already have been inspected under the terms of a recall by Vauxhall. They issued a recall after investigations into there being the above average number of fires, the press picked up on this and it's been very widely reported.

 

They have subsequently issued another recall to inspect the already recalled vehicles again.

 

A franchised Vauxhall dealer will have knowledge of the identity of the vehicles affected, a non franchise car dealer won't know until the letter from Vauxhall lands on his door step.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst it is true the recall is free there are other reasons for not wanting the car such as the massive depreciation in value and almost double the cost of insurance.

 

Also the thought of having my wife and 4 kids in the car knowing that these fires still occur after the recall has taken place does not fill me with confidence.

 

Like I said, I would not have purchased this car had I known of the outstanding recall

 

Massive depreciation is part of motoring, and something to be considered before not after purchase. You can't reject it because it's going to go down in value

 

Likewise with insurance, you check that before buying not after.

 

It is extremely unlikely (or about the same as any other car) to catch fire once the recall work is done.

 

I sense a bit of buyers remorse here: this matter has been very very widely publicised i find it hard to believe you were unaware that Zafiras had this outstanding problem.

 

Like i said, the recall is free, it is no more likely to catch fire than any other car, get the recall done, move on

Link to post
Share on other sites

Massive depreciation is part of motoring, and something to be considered before not after purchase. You can't reject it because it's going to go down in value

 

Likewise with insurance, you check that before buying not after.

 

It is extremely unlikely (or about the same as any other car) to catch fire once the recall work is done.

 

I sense a bit of buyers remorse here: this matter has been very very widely publicised i find it hard to believe you were unaware that Zafiras had this outstanding problem.

 

Like i said, the recall is free, it is no more likely to catch fire than any other car, get the recall done, move on

 

I have to agree with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see what the OP is saying but we need to clarify a couple of things.

 

 

If the car was bought from a non affiliated Vauxhall dealer then the OP has nowhere to go as the dealer would not have access to whether or not the car was affected or not.

 

 

If the car was bought from a recognised Vauxhall affiliated dealer then there would be grounds to complain however the OP would have to prove that the dealer had not carried out the recall already. It can take a few months to show on database records.

 

 

As per previous advice, take it to a Vauxhall dealer who will confirm if it's needed or not, if not then get on with your life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It isn't about the value of the car it is about how much I value the safety of my family!

 

You can find it hard to believe if you wish but it was not until after buying the car that i found this out.

 

You seem to know a lot about the likelihood of this car catching fire, do you care to share the source of this information.

 

The reason I am not happy is that I believe the car was misold to me. I now have a car that is not used because i care about the safety of my family. If you have looked into this you will see that Zafiras are still going up in flames even after the recall has been carried out.

 

Why do people think that car traders are above the law when it comes to selling unsafe products.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any update for us Lbg123 ??

 

Yes,

 

I have taken legal advice on the matter and as far as I can see the car has been misold to me.

 

Also under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 they had no right to sell me the car. The DVSA has issued a guide covering this. I can't post links but if you google "A guide to safety recalls in the used vehicle industry" you will find the guide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to know a lot about the likelihood of this car catching fire, do you care to share the source of this information.

 

I can answer that one. It's been extensively covered over and over again on every news broadcast for at least a year and on Watchdog.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I now have a car that is not used because i care about the safety of my family.

You can still drive it without fear of catching fire with the heater blower set to 0 or 4 as advised by vauxhall. The fire issue is with a dodgy batch of blower resistor packs which overheat and can cause a fire. With blower off (0) there's no power going through the resistor pack and with blower set to max (4) full blower power bypasses the resistor pack. The resistor pack is only used on the settings between off & max as it reduces the current flow to slow down the speed of the heater blower motor. Most resistor packs contain some kind of safety thermal fuse that blows when it exceeds a certain temp but for whatever reason the ones fitted to some of these motors are overheating and causing fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,

 

I have taken legal advice on the matter and as far as I can see the car has been misold to me.

 

Also under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 they had no right to sell me the car. The DVSA has issued a guide covering this. I can't post links but if you google "A guide to safety recalls in the used vehicle industry" you will find the guide.

 

Looking at the legislation that you have referenced to and the definitions that in the further legislation that is referenced:

 

“distributor” means a professional in

the supply chain whose activity does not affect the safety

properties of a product;

 

“producer” means—

(a) the manufacturer of a product, when he is estab

lished in a Member State and any other

person presenting himself as the manufacturer by

affixing to the product his name, trade

mark or other distinctive mark, or the person who reconditions the product;

 

I think that your basis for proposed legal action against the car dealer is flawed. The car dealer is not the producer of the car - it is Vauxhall and he is not the distributor of the car, that will be an approved Vauxhall dealer.

 

Why not just get the car booked in for the work and get it sorted out at no cost to you, other than a bit of time and fuel?

Link to post
Share on other sites

lbg, get a life and move on. You have no recourse against anyone apart from yourself for over reacting. The instances are very rare.

 

 

As others have posted, go to a Vauxhall dealer and get it checked for outstanding recalls (government) and campaigns (manufacturer driven) to see what is outstanding.

 

 

I doubt you'll get much help here unless you help yourself and the first step is to get it checked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A recall which was not only very good, but outstanding........................

 

H

44 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's more to this than meets the eye, buyer remorse me thinks. When I read "safety of my family" and not taking heed of the good advice given here I read bollocks. Quite pathetic really for someone trying to reject a car because they don't like it!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's more to this than meets the eye, buyer remorse me thinks. When I read "safety of my family" and not taking heed of the good advice given here I read bollocks. Quite pathetic really for someone trying to reject a car because they don't like it!!!

 

Yes. THIS ^^^^

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...