Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi With the Section 21 Notice I do hope the Landlord issued you with: Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) for the Property How to Rent Guide A current Gas Safety Certificate (if gas in the Property) If above have not been provided to the Tenant by the Landlord then they can't use a Section 21 Notice until the above have been provided (note you don't warn the Landlord of this until but put it in your defence) Have a good read of this link: Evicting tenants in England: Section 21 and Section 8 notices - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Information for landlords in England on tenant eviction: assured shorthold tenancies, including eviction notices, Section 21, Section 8, accelerated possession, possession orders, bailiffs  
    • good idea take some pix and put them in a PDF read UPLOAD dx
    • thread title updated moved to overseas debt forum. sadly as they are outside any UK jurisdiction upon DCA rules which state in the UK they must not call employers, there not alot you can do to stop these scammers. make sure you totally make private ALL social media twitter/facebook/linked in etc etc as there no-way for them to findout where you work otherwise so you must have a leak somewhere. find it. your employer details arent even legally available to UK DCA's so how have they found it out to date???  simply write to the BANK informing them of your correct and current address ALWAYS!!. if you want to arrange payment or not TO THE BANK ONLY thats upto you. never ever ignore a Statutory Demand a Letter Of Claim a Court Claimform. if if if any of those ever happen. till then ignore and rewash. dx    
    • Date of issue –   13 may 2024 AOS date 31st may defence filing date 14th june plenty of lowell card claimform threads here use our enhanced google searchbox Lowell card claimform id be reading at least 5-10 threads a day. do NOT MISS your defence filing whatever happens.  
    • Hello All,  I’m hoping someone can help me urgently here. Firstly, I’d like to say I have read multiple other threads and have some what an idea of what I should be doing, however my case might be slightly different so coming with my own questions here.    my situation is I lived in Dubai and had a credit card and a loan, loan with HSBC and credit card with Emirates (or the other way round), I lost my job and was forced to leave the country as I was staying in the country on my companies visa.    since coming back, after a few years 2 different debt collections agencies have been approaching me (one being IDRW and the other J&P). I’ve never answered IDRWW and they constantly chase me by calling and messaging me and my employer. My current company is ok with this as I explained the situation but I’m soon to be joining a new company who definitely won’t be ok with being messaged and called. I’m afraid to continue to ignore them as they may message and calm the new employer as they have before and I’ll lose my job. However, it seems clear from these forums that dealing with the debt collection agencies is never a good idea. You shouldn’t agree to the amount or pay anything.    j&p caught me on my phone but I still haven't sent them any money or confirmed the amount they’re saying is owed, they keep pushing to pay off the “principal” amount by making monthly payments, from reading these forums it seems like if I make one of those payments (they have provided bank details for ENBD), then it’ll just be paying off interest and not actually clearing the principle debt and the bank won’t even approve receipt of payment or that it’s coming off principle.    this is my predicament as ignoring them might not be an option if they chase my new employer. Maybe there’s a way to ensure the debt collection agency don’t contact my new employer?? I don’t know? Massively appreciate peoples help here. Thanks, 
  • 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

problems with MOT on second hand car - From Jason Atterbury Cars Leicester.

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2572 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I purchased a car on the 08/04/17 from Jason Atterbury Cars in Leicester.

It came with a clean MOT


on checking out previous MOTs online I discovered some discrepancies.


I took the car for a pre MOT check at my local testing station on the 29/04/17

they found that the car should of failed its MOT on 2 issues and also have 8 advisories on it.


The car was MOTd by ther dealer on the 21/03/17 where it failed on exhaust gasses leaking and an advisory for the front shocker having a misting of oil.


on the retest done on the 27/04/17 it passed as the exhaust had been welded and on asking about the shocker leaking the dealer said the mot tester wiped the oil off and it retested ok.


All the advisories that it should have on it should of been on it since 2013 according to the MOT history check.


I have reported it to VOSA and the AA as the dealer is part of AA cars.


I called the dealer immediately on picking the car up and he said all he can do is have the car back and take it back to the MOT tester to let him have a look at it.


I refused point blank as I can hardly trust the MOT tester that passed it in the first place to look at it again.


I told the dealer he can have the car if I get a full refund(he rufused obviously)

I'm unsure of what other action I can take.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then get a chargeback via your bank. Sort the paperwork out so its no longer in your name, and leave the vehicle on his property and give him the keys.


Make sure to keep enough evidence as possible. Photos, video etc.


By law he cannot refuse.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..



If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have emailed the dealer rejecting the car under the consumer rights act 2015 and he has denied receiving it, I've used both his emails and sent it 4 times.


I have contacted AAcars as he's one of their trusted traders and they said they will contact him.


I've spoken to the dvla and they haven't had the log book back yet even though he said he posted it on the 10th april,


i might be able to get my money back by raising a despute with my bank as i paid by debit card.


I will be posting a copy of the email to him by recorded delivery on friday

but not sure that he will even sign for it.


Im still waiting to hear from vosa about having the car inspected and have not used it since it was brought home on the 29 april.


Is there anything else i should of done?


Finding it all a bit overwhelming and feel like a total idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is he denying receiving it?

I presume on the phone, as he'd be daft to do it in e-mail .....


The good news : if you have that call recorded it is certain you have clearly expressed your desire to reject the car.


If he is dodging recorded / special delivery letters, also send a copy by first class post. Get a (free) proof of posting.

You don't get proof of delivery, but delivery can be presumed (it is a rebuttable presumption, but given all the circumstances a court would likely conclude he was aware of your wish to reject .....)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I called to make sure he got the email and said he hadn't so recent it and then told him to text me when he got it but text to say he hadn't and gave me another email via text so i used the link to resend it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. You certainly dont need to tell him at all.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..



If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), it is not illegal for individuals to tape conversations provided the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring is only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication are made available to a third party. Meaning i can't use it as proof if i take legal action i guess

Link to post
Share on other sites

What mobile? What OS and network?.


You don't try to use the recording as evidence. You are making the recording only for yourself & your own records.

If a dispute arises you say "I'll just check my recollection", and listen to the recording yourself : then say "No, my recollection is correct".

Of course, if the other side (or a judge!) then insist on hearing the recording ..........

(If it is the other side : insist they provide consent from all those recorded for you to provide it, as when you recorded it you were just recording it for your own records and didn't need consent)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gawd this is painful.



By looking at the car you decided to buy so must have wanted it and then decided to have it re MOT'd just because you found some advisories listed against it.



The Majority of the MOT test is subjective though getting better to be objective.


The exhaust leak..

..well all exhausts leak.

..it's called a tail pipe but understand what your saying and indeed all exhausts are welded,

some are rolled and folded but they all leak in one way or another,

it's where they leak that can be called into question.


Likewise, all dampers will mist oil as it's impossible to seal a moving rod under pressure without it leaking.

Just look at some hydraulic rams,

they'll all exhibit some evidence of leaks...

.in fact a brand new damper it's possible to detect leaks on.


Despite the usual over reactionary advice here,

it would be nice to know what car it is,

how old and how many miles done

and how much you paid as this all has a bearing on what you're being told to do.


The CPA is relative to age, mileage and price which didn't change when it came in so the dealer might well be within his rights to challenge your advised rejection.


Advisories are not a fail,

only that in the opinion at the time of inspection there MIGHT be a potential problem and opinions differ from one person to another.



What is guaranteed though is that by reporting advisories to VOSA you detract resource from the real rouges in the industry. Fortunately VOSA are a bit more switched on.


Talk to the dealer about your concerns first rather than steaming in with a rejection as after all some of this is down to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the op under CRA is quite entitled to reject the car and demand a full refund as faults were found within 30 days.




please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car is an 08 chevrolet captiva, 99128 miles paid £2995. The car should of failed on the side repeaters being discoloured and the exhaust flexi blowing. The advisories are:

signs of steering rack leaking from offside

Nearside outer cv boot damaged

Offside front shocker weeping

Nearside front shocker weeping

Both suspension arm bushes deteriorated and has slight movement

Rear exhaust hanger broken

Oil leak

On looking back through the mot history the advisories started to be listed in 2015 (not 2013 as firts said) and suddenly disappeared in 2017.

The dealer had the car motd in march 2017 whete it failed due to exhaust gasses leaking and an advisory for shockers weeping. The dealer had the exhaust welded and when i asked about the shockers he said the oil was wiped off and they were ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't "steam in and reject the car" i spoke to the dealer while still in the garage when i went to collect the car and the only thing he wanted to do was have the car back and take it to the guy that did the mot for him so he could have another look at it. I am far from daft and obviously rejected his offer to have the same person who wiped oil off the shockers and removed the advisory in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe advisories are a valid reason to reject a car under CRA (unless the items have been described as good) and dealers are not obliged to correct any advisory - only the fail items. The previous advisories haven't been removed and will always be available to anyone who wants to search previous mot history, which is why it's usually a good idea to do that before buying a car and use any unfixed advisories as a negotiation tool. Advisories are subjective (some testers like to flex their power and go to town with the pen and some don't bother) but not a reason to reject. Certain items of the MoT can be subjective and left to the testers own discretion & judgment - I believe vosa take the view that if in doubt a tester should pass & advise. I do think you'll struggle with a rejection under CRA if the only issues flagged up by your own inspection are a faded indicator lens and leak in the flex, which I'm sure for those items the dealer would be happy to correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...