Car dealer CAR HUB LONDON LIMITED trying to stall/evade/dodge their responsibilities Claim Issued ***Judgment***

[AndyOrch]

Best of luck Ben..please update your thread after the hearing whether good or bad.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[BenScoobert]

Predictably they can't attend, got this by email, just spoken to the court, I'll still be popping in to the court on time.

 

They've submitted more clutching at straws with it as expected.

 

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written Submission for the Defendant

Preliminary Hearing 20 March 2017

 

1. With the deepest regret, the Defendant notifies the honourable Court that, due unforeseen childcare problems, the Defendant will not be able to attend the Preliminary Hearing and makes this Written Submission instead.

 

2. The Defendant is a small business operated by 2 people: the Director and the Sales Manager. The Director’s child had suffered an injury and presently due a severe withdrawal symptom cannot be left without the Director’s attention. The Sales Manager also has childcare responsibilities, and because of an unexpected breakdown in childcare arrangements the Sales Manager is unable to attend the Preliminary Hearing.

 

3. As the Defendant is a small business, the County Court at Huddersfield is at a substantial distance from the Defendant’s place of business and residence of its director and staff, the difficulties with the childcare and the pressures of the Defendant’s business needs, the Defendant kindly invites the Court to consider transfer of the present proceedings to Edmonton County Court for trial in the interest of the overriding objective and pursuant to the CPR 30(2)(b).

 

4. The Defendant respectfully submits that the burden of proof is on the Claimant in exercising his right to reject the Mercedes S320 motor vehicle Registration Number.....(the ‘Vehicle’) as claimed or at all pursuant to s. 19(14) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Claimant to-date has failed to furnish acceptable or at all evidence in substantiation of his claim to a fault with the Vehicle at the point of sale.

 

5. In his Statement of Facts of 8 March 2017, the Claimant confirms at para 4 the Vehicle drove as expected at his test drive. The Defendant notes the report of 18 October 2016 by Northern Assessors states at para 17 that ‘juddering’ could be replicated between the speeds of 50mph to 70mph. The Defendant submits the Claimant would have exceeded 50mph at his test drive, however no ‘juddering’ was noticed at that point.

 

6. The Defendant further notes the Claimant admits at para 8 of his Statement of Facts that he continued driving the Vehicle to his home on a journey of some 200 miles despite the alleged ‘juddering’ manifestation. The possibility of a drive-on damage to the Vehicle through the Claimant’s negligent driving cannot thus at all be excluded.

 

7. The report by Northern Assessors at para 23 states the observed damage to the Vehicle, which was not present at the point of sale and would have only been occasioned within the brief period of the Claimant’s ownership and possession of the Vehicle.

8. The Defendant respectfully submits the report by Northern Assessor provided by the Claimant cannot serve as expert evidence and does specify a fault with the Vehicle at the point of sale.

 

9. The Defendant notes the report was commissioned and obtained prior the present claim issue. The Claimant, however, withheld the report from the Defendant. The Defendant respectfully submits that withholding the report which was available to the Claimant and service thereof only under compulsion of the court order of 10 December 2016 proves unreasonable pre-litigation conduct on the part of the Claimant.

 

10. Turning to the substance of the report, the Defendant respectfully submits that the report is defective and non-compliant with the CPR, and thus cannot at all be accepted as expert evidence in the matter.

 

11. At paras 18-20 the author of the report, Mr David Grogan, admits to seeking opinion of ‘Mercedes Benz specialist Broadley’. The need to seek opinion of the third party on the specific issues referred to the reporting engineer for his expert knowledge raises reasonable doubt as to his prerequisite competence.

 

12. The report does not specify the instructions issued by the Claimant and terms of reference. The Defendant was deprived of any opportunity to provide instructions for the reporting engineer or form terms of his reference. Further, the reporting engineer clearly acted ultra vires in passing his opinion on the alleged right to reject at para 27, quoting the ‘Sale of Goods act’ [sic], which clearly does not apply to the sale of the vehicle. The issue of the right to reject is a legal matter falling outside the technical knowledge of the report author.

 

13. The report is inconsistent even in respect of such a fundamental aspect as the mileage of the Vehicle. Para 1 states 158,649 as the observed mileage of the Vehicle, whereas at para 10 the report suggests this was the odometer reading at the point of sale.

 

14. Most crucially, the report is fundamentally silent on the nature and cause for the stated faults and their presence or otherwise at the point of sale. The report thus offers no help to the court for determination of whether or not the Defendant is in breach of the vehicle sale contract.

 

15. The invoice of Broadley & Holmes dated 25 October 2016, on which the Claimant purports to rely on in substantiation of his claim, merely states ‘gearbox and torque converter requires overhaul due to bad drive vibration’. It offers no elucidation as to the nature of the stated malfunction or its presence at the point of sale.

 

16. In view of the above and notwithstanding the evidential burden on the Claimant pursuant to s.19(14) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Defendant respectfully invites the court to consider issuing directions for commissioning an expert report in this case. The Defendant proposes to appoint an engineer of Automotive Consulting Engineers Limited (ACE) to inspect the Vehicle and provide expert evidence. ACE engineers are skilful in assisting courts with CPR complaint expert reports at reasonable fees. The Defendant submits instructions to the expert should be joint and the cost split equally between the parties at this stage.

I believe that the facts stated in this Submission are true and I am duly authorised to sign this statement.

[BenScoobert]

Back from court,

The judge has said the case will be held at my choice of court, not theirs.

He accepts our expert evidence, he has given them the choice to appoint their own expert as they have tried to discredit our expert's report.

Court case is likely to be in July

[Ebot]

Hi Ben I'm in exactly your situation

 

 

I've done the LBA, they sent a bozo round to look at the car

-a diesel mini-

On the net they call it the death rattle and it is awell know fault.

 

 

This supposed engineer rang me back and told me to put an engine additive in and drive it for a week!!

I had already taken it to a local garage who advised me not to drive in case the chain went then the engine would be kaput.

 

 

Rang them back to give me writtem permission to drive it at their risk.

The director of this shambles said I dont do writing and put the phone down.

 

Submitted my claim 3 days ago through MCOL.

Had the car repaired at my cost with a Mini Specialist and claiming that amount through Small Claims.

So your case is still ongoing then ????

Good Luck Mate,

Tony.

[BenScoobert]

2 days to my court case,

I'm expecting them to make a last minute offer,

this has been so drawn out it is painful financially and mentally.

 

They had the car inspected but failed to submit the report,

obviously the guy found the faults the others found,

 

 

I suspect even more, so they didn't submit it, although they arranged the inspection after the court's submission date so it couldn't be submitted anyway.

[BenScoobert]

As predicted they have sent a paltry offer of £6300, I think at this stage I shall reject that as I feel I have a strong case and that price puts me out the price of a gearbox and no car.

[dx100uk]

god for you.

they are phishing for a cheap getaway on selling a pup.

they probably knew it was a pup too!

[BazzaS]

As predicted they have sent a paltry offer of £6300, I think at this stage I shall reject that as I feel I have a strong case and that price puts me out the price of a gearbox and no car.

 

With a day to go before small claims track of the county court, you don't even have to acknowledge the offer, let alone reject it .......

If they mention it, just say "I'm happy to let the judge decide".

 

Your claim is for £7,469 and interest?.

Including £700 for 20 hours (you wouldn't get £35/hour, even in a track other than small claims, unless you can demonstrate you lost 20 hours work that you could have been paid £35/hour for....)

 

Interest at 8% on £7,469 is 597.52 per year, or £1.64 /day. Where did you get the figure of £5.26/day you have claimed??

[BenScoobert]

With a day to go before small claims track of the county court, you don't even have to acknowledge the offer, let alone reject it .......

If they mention it, just say "I'm happy to let the judge decide".

 

Your claim is for £7,469 and interest?.

Including £700 for 20 hours (you wouldn't get £35/hour, even in a track other than small claims, unless you can demonstrate you lost 20 hours work that you could have been paid £35/hour for....)

 

Interest at 8% on £7,469 is 597.52 per year, or £1.64 /day. Where did you get the figure of £5.26/day you have claimed??

 

Things have moved on a bit since then, not sure where that £5.26 figure came from .

 

I didn't claim for my wasted time in the end, but I just based that on my overtime rate.

 

The claim is now for

£6500 car

£400 inspection

£108 Inspection

£410 court fee

£335 trial fee

£?? some interest £620.24 annually £1.70 a day we're at about 300 days

 

And you know I am happy to let the judge decide, both the wife and I have decided the facts really do speak for themselves, they have a weak defence and I want them to have the inconvenience of facing me 200 miles from home, to look in their eyes and tell them what I think and tear their pathetic excuses apart.

[BazzaS]

And you know I am happy to let the judge decide, both the wife and I have decided the facts really do speak for themselves, they have a weak defence and I want them to have the inconvenience of facing me 200 miles from home, to look in their eyes and tell them what I think and tear their pathetic excuses apart.

 

Do you think they will show up?

 

I doubt you'll get the chance to "tear their pathetic excuses apart". While your desire for "your day in court" is understandable,

a) they may not show up

b) you may not get to question them, or tear their defence apart. It will depend if the judge decides to question either of the parties.....

[BenScoobert]

Do you think they will show up?

 

I doubt you'll get the chance to "tear their pathetic excuses apart". While your desire for "your day in court" is understandable,

a) they may not show up

b) you may not get to question them, or tear their defence apart. It will depend if the judge decides to question either of the parties.....

 

Primed and ready!!!

[BenScoobert]

They failed to attend, they submitted evidence and a statement less than an hour before the hearing.

The judge didn't allow the evidence as it was past the submission date, a few minutes before the case seems unreasonable to me and an attempt to make a mockery of the system when dates are set.

 

As I said their defence was weak at best, the judge just picked it apart with the facts I submitted.

Decided in my favour with nearly £1000 of costs, I was disappointed as the court had lost my original receipt of £400 for the inspection and wouldn't accept it. Also the interest was calculated at 2% which is annoying. I disagreed but the judge wouldn't have it.

 

I guess now we wait for the dealer to try and pull some non paying stunt, I assure you the moment the 14 days is up I'll be pushing. I need to read up on that procedure.

[AndyOrch]

Hey well done Ben......we can advise on executing the judgment if needs be.....

 

Thread title amended to reflect the outcome.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[kingell]

Hi Ben,

 

Interest is calculated at 8% per day.

 

You won't receive your time payment of £700 but the District Judge

might award you consequential damages.

 

Have you returned the car? Did you photograph it inside and out?

 

The CRA is long isn't it? I'm also fighting a garage.

 

Good luck.

 

Sorry I missed some of the above - went for tea before posting.

 

Regards

Edited July 24, 2017 by kingell

[BazzaS]

Hi Ben,

 

Interest is calculated at 8% per day.

 

No, it isn't 8% per day ....

 

The court may allow 8% per year.

If so, you can work out the value for 8% for the year, divide that by 365, and use that as the applicable daily rate ......

[kingell]

Yup Bazzas

I knew how to calculate but I didn't know the judge could diminish the extent. Thanks.

I'm sorry my post was late I hadn't realised I should have checked extra pages at the bottom.

Regards to all

[BenScoobert]

Finally the order landed today, should I contact their lawyer, them or wait for them to contact me.

[AndyOrch]

What time frame have you requested for payment?

[BenScoobert]

The court have said to be paid by 28th August

[AndyOrch]

Then you must wait until this date before executing the judgment

[BenScoobert]

I meant should I contact them to assist in arranging payment?

[AndyOrch]

Your details are on the Notice of Judgment...Im sure they know how to contact you and when to pay.

[BenScoobert]

they made contact 3 days before the final date.

They arranged to come collect the car and wire me the money,

then the night before they said they'd bring cash.

 

 

I told them to plan to sit around an hour whilst I deposited the money in the bank and have it checked for counterfeit notes,

they then saw sense and wired the money.

 

 

I moved the car to the pub car park next door as I didn't want that slime on my property.

They arrived,

I filled in the V5 online and they left,

the slime that sold me the car didn't have the decency or testicular fortitude to look me in the eye, just got his minion to run around.

 

Given that I have won my case against these awful traders

I feel I should name and shame them on here so people looking them up on search engines will see what a shocking outfit they are and avoid them at all costs,

 

 

is that against forum rules?

[dx100uk]

no its not

[BenScoobert]

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09243301

 

CAR HUB LONDON LIMITED

Company number 09243301

 

The car was M444JED

 

AVOID BOTH AT ALL COSTS!