Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 3 copies court sols your file   no to mediation 1 wit you   the rest is obv.   on the copy to CEL or their sols if they state one do not give them email/sig/phone.
    • usual game by erudio in that the last confirmed deferment was about 2011 but erudio didn't issue a DN until some 5yrs later  so i was thinking of:    alternative whereby claimant intimates SB date=defaulted date and that has been registered months after the last payment . 1 The Claimant's claim was issued on dd/mm/yyyy.  2.The date last payment made was the dd/mm/yyyy   3.The Default Notice was issued dd/mm/yyyy and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.  4.Therefore the Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.  5.The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.   as we know drydens will claim thus its not SB'd.   sadly this case is somewhat complex in that there was some confusion by the OP upon this being paid off already, so had before they came here filed a defence stating such.    once the story was fully relayed, but which remains somewhat confusing still,  and things sorted out, it transpired this was for an honours student loan settled through Link/Thesis etc and nothing to do with the ones sold to Erudio.   it also transpired that a deferment direct to the SLC before 2013 sale, did not actually happen and SLC kept the details awaiting the OP to resubmit it, which never happened. this resulted in SLC taking payments because the Op's account was in arrears, this also latterly enabled Erudio, without permission nor any contact, to use the existing SLC DD to take payments in 2014 i think. which should not have happened.   i think thats it in a nutshell.    
    • Hi, I just wanted some advice from anybody who may have had a similar problem or might know what's going on please?   Last March, just as this pandemic took hold my  husband lost his job. No furlough, no redundancy pay or anything. Just finished. We knew nothing about claiming benefits but we managed to put in a claim for JSA and then UC (they just deducted the JSA from anything we were entitled to from UC)   later in the year, I made a claim for carer's allowance as I am my mums full time carer. She receives attendance allowance. I waited several weeks to hear anything back but the claim was successful and I reported this to UC.   My husband got a job again in August. This too was reported to them and his earnings meant that we received very little or nothing during that time. He then lost this job in December yet again due to covid and again we reported this and he again claimed for JSA.   He got another job in January and again told UC and JSA. We received pretty much nothing and the last payment we did receive, they deducted everything that was left for a tax credit over payment that we apparently owe from previous years.   We have now received a letter in our journal saying that we have had an over payment due to back pay of carer's allowance that I received last year after all the weeks of waiting. Fair enough, I don't really understand still how all of this works as we have always worked but they told us before that all earnings etc and things from DWP get reported to them anyway so they knew what carer's allowance I had received.   I then replied to ask if we can set up repayments for this and we then had another letter in the journal saying.. DO NOT IGNORE THIS MESSAGE We are carrying out a review of your information, and so I need to speak to you BOTH about your universal credit claim. We'll be checking a few details with you on this call to make sure you're entitled to universal credit. You might also be asked to provide additional evidence but we will discuss that on the call. If we can't get in contact or speak with you, your claim will be suspended and ultimately closed. There will likely be an over payment and this will be recovered from you.   This seems a bit serious is there anything I should be worried about? Or is it purely just a review to maybe close down the account now that my husband is back in work and earning more money? It doesn't mention the over payment so I am not sure if it is about that or not but my husband suffers very much with stress and anxiety and now he is panicking over this because he thinks that they are going to make out we have been up to something when we most definitely have not.   Admittedly, we have struggled with it because we have never claimed before and not been able to attend any face to face appointments etc but as far as I am concerned, we did everything asked of us.   The only other thing is that I now have £2000 in the bank sitting there as we are in desperate need of another car as this one we have is on it's last legs but I was told you only need to declare £6000 and over.   Any advice or anyone had the same please? Pretty confused. Thanks.
    • Using miley_b ob 's great letter as a template, is the below along the right lines:   Dear Civil Enforcement (CEL) Limited   I write in response to your Letter Before Action - Claim for Debt , which I have received in relation to PCN Number: ?????, you have issued in response to a case I have explained is baseless.   I am writing to notify you that I have no intention of paying these ridiculous and made-up sums of money, for allegedly breaking some imaginary contract with yourselves. Expecting me to pay you a baseless fine for not entering my cars registration details amounts to extortion. You already have my £2 for parking in your car park, a fact I'm sure you realise due to the fact you own all CCTV in the carpark. I would also reference the fact that the parking meter that issued me a ticket without entering my registration has since been fixed, which shows that you are fully aware of the problems it has caused.   You have also scored a big own goal by adding a £82 admin fee. Presumably, this admin fee is some sort of unicorn food tax. I suggest that you look at DDJ Harvey’s judgement at Lewes County Court on 05/02/2020 (Claim number F0HM9E9Z). He was not very happy with these made-up amounts, was he?   You can either drop this foolishness now or get a good spanking in court. The choice is yours.   Hopefully we will not be speaking again,   xxxx
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

North West car sales Heywood - Rogue car dealer **WON-PAID IN FULL**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 998 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

 

Now if you look at there website (main homepage go to the bottom) you will notice

 

Company No: Is blank & VAT No: is blank

 

So a whoisdomaintools check of the domain (http): http://whois.domaintools.com/karsales-northwest.co.uk

(you may need to complete a captcha to view the link) and the link reveals:

 

Domain name:

karsales-northwest.co.uk

 

Registrant:

NWCA Ltd

 

Registrant type:

UK Limited Company, (Company number: 9328302)

 

So a Companies House check of the above company no: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09328302

Companycheck: https://companycheck.co.uk/company/09328302/THE-NWCA-LIMITED/companies-house-data

 

The NWCA Limited

 

Registered Office Address: Brulimar House Jubilee Road, Middleton, Manchester, England, M24 2LX

they were Dissolved 28th Feb 2017, note the Directors and the Registered Office Address

 

But

 

on further checking we find:

 

Companies House link: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09376049

Endole Link: https://www.endole.co.uk/company/09376049/nwca-trading-limited

 

Nwca Trading Limited

 

Company Number: 09376049

 

Registered Office Address: Brulimar House Jubilee Road, Middleton, Manchester, England, M24 2LX

they were Incorporated 6th Jan 2015 & are still Active, note the registered office address and Directors (surnames are same but first name may be different)

 

what I also found is another company called:

 

NWCA Nomineess Ltd

 

Company Number: 09420821

 

Companies House Link: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09420821

Endole Link: https://www.endole.co.uk/company/09420821/nwca-nominees-ltd

 

Registered Office Address: Brulimar House Jubilee Road, Middleton, Manchester, England, M24 2LX

Note the registered office address & Director

 

To check a VAT No Online use (VIES): http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/

 

Take your time viewing the information within those links

Edited by stu007

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Still don't get this post other than a grumpy old pensioner with champagne tastes and beer money buying a luxury car with mega mileage, not doing recommended homework prior to buying and now crying over spilt milk.

 

Other posts he's made confirm he can't calculate and then he thinks he's so sure to criticise me.

 

Just for his information,

I've helped quite a few people on here save and recover thousands of pounds of inappropriate sales or repairs and I don't shout about it.

But what I do is criticise people for being plain stupid or inappropriate advice.

 

If you have a problem then state the full facts, don't mess around feeling sorry for yourself and then think because of some internet advice you can charge around like St George.

 

this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks oddjobbob - that's very kind and helpful.

 

I'm sending the court claim today - sadly nature is occasionally unkind so I've been slowed down.

 

I did do similar research to yours and found the absence of VAT number and Company number.

However, the receipt shows a VAT no:207 1290 41

 

I also checked various company registration sites and found:

 

[Name] (b. August 1985 - just over 30) “Active directorships – 0, Resigned directorships – 0 Closed directorships – 7 Total directorships – 7." "[Name] is not registered as holding any current appointments.”

 

The Nwca Limited was dissolved on 2017-02-28 =In America ;-)

 

The Nwca was a private limited company . The company was officially classified as "sale of used cars and light motor vehicles" (45112). 2015-11-26 was the date of the most recent annual return.

 

Companies with links:

BEST QUOTE SERVICES LIMITED (Company number 07001305) (Dissolved)

MICHELIN PROPERTIES LIMITED (Dissolved)

NW TYRES AND BATTERIES LTD (Dissolved)

SHOPEAZ LTD (Dissolved)

CRUSTICO LTD (Dissolved) (Liabilities - £36,190 – Assets £16347) Crustiico Ltd ( a food import business ) at the same address– incorporated 14th May 2012 with capital of £1 on 15th May 2015

THE NWCA LIMITED (Dissolved) (Liabilities £2875 – Assets £3000)

SCRAP YOUR MOTOR LIMITED (Dissolved)

 

Over 907 companies are registered at this postcode address (Brulimar House Jubilee Road, Middleton, Manchester, M24 2LX) which appears to be a mail forwarding address.

 

They are now called "NW car sales" and they also run a car auction - probably from where they obtain their cars.

They haven't disappeared yet but I don't suppose it will be long.

 

I have been offered a full refund but no consequential damages or "gesture of goodwill" and I'm expected to sign that I'm

satisfied with that. There's an extra £100 on the spread sheet already which is increasing at 8% per day. Court costs are

now £205 for the application and £335 for the trial. This somewhat precludes many people and it isn't returned if an

out of court settlement is reached.

 

I'll return when I have more developments. I've been a delegate to the Law Society so I have a number of educated friends.

 

Thanks again for your time and support.

 

I agree with you about heliosuk. I don't understand its problem.

 

Helios was described as a handsome Titan crowned with the shining aureole of the Sun, who drove the chariot of the sun across the sky each day to earth-circling Oceanus and through the world-ocean returned to the East at night. In the Homeric hymn to Helios, Helios is said to drive a golden chariot drawn by steeds - must be a very good mechanic.

 

I've been dealing with a questionable company and can do without unwarranted unpleasantness.

BTW I don't like champagne or beer.

 

Kind regards

 

Sorry and many thanks to Stu007 - missed that. :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be quite candid, if you've been offered your money back I'd take that and move on.

 

ANY Lexus dealer will pull an old lexus to bits and tell you it needs all sorts of work.

 

You may get som of you incurred expenses in court, but there's a chance you'll get nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tears before bedtime are imminent

, the CRA states that the expected condition should be consummate for age/mileage.

 

The design life of most cars is 150k and ten years.

 

Thats why at this age/mileage £60k (when new) cars are only a few thousand pounds to buy, you take your chances.

 

A full refund at this stage is swimming the channel.

 

Good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly my point but the op seems to have taken it upon himself the act as St George on a charger!!

I will take the pee but as usual we're not given the facts.

 

What is wrong with the car?

What is the age and mileage?

How much paid?

 

 

Only when this info is given then is anyone in a position to really make comment but the OP is so cock sure of himself.

 

 

I can trump any legal thing he wants to quote big time!!

I just wish people would give the facts and move on as this one is on a hiding to nothing.

 

 

As phil40000 states and I keep reminding people the CRA states commensurate with age and mileage and I still don't think the OP has been clean with us as regards this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the traders are back. :-(

 

Heliosuk - I haven't paid your fee so I don't need your advice. You've already had my comments.

And you are not a lawyer although I see you are associated with trump and apparently can make your own laws.

And I see that you continue to be unnecessarily rude.

 

St George?? by George - just stop being rude and go and play with your cars.

I'm not bragging here or riding my stallion - I've been seeking help and useful advice - which I've had -

many thanks to those who have obliged.

I am much more confident going forward to the Small Claims Court. Not so sure about the cock though - better adjust my skirt.

 

"What is wrong with the car? What is the age and mileage? How much paid? "

Whoever this OP is - you've been given ALL you've asked for.

Anyway I expect your proverbial friends at NW car sales have already told you.

 

Go back and read again and please stop contributing to this post

This website is not here to dissuade people from pursuing their rights which is obviously what you are trying to do.

 

I haven't read anywhere that a car has an expendable life although obviously most have

evidenced by the size of scrap yards. Although I see Nationwide are still running the Fred Flintstone's vehicle. :-)

 

"Buy our car but it will only last you a few years will need expensive parts fitted by an expensive mechanic and then wear out." Good sales ploy.

 

My colleague's car is over 25 years old and still reliable and serviceable only requiring replacement of parts that normally wear out. A clean MOT with no warnings every year.

 

And there are plenty of honest people selling cars much older than that or this defective machine.

 

"consummate with age and mileage. - Really? Someone's rewritten it again.

"9 Goods to be of satisfactory quality

(1) Every contract to supply goods is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the goods is satisfactory.

(2) The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory."

 

But sadly, guys, you are too late. It's all being dealt with now

using the excellent guide at the top of this site with its lawyer video links

and the excellent book advertised on the side here.

 

Having been a delegate to the Law Society I've also had some good advice from there also.

 

As I said before - oh no I didn't - did I - I didn't say anything before:

This is a site to help people - yes - help people - not to give false advice in support of the

dealers who cheat and rob; or to pontificate and castigate.

 

It's not needed. I do wish those who monitor here would delete the rudeness. I had my question marks removed.

 

All I want back is what I've spent plus interest after being sold a defective vehicle.

 

I realise Lexus like to make a few bucks. I'd already booked a provisional service assuming I was dealing with an honest retailer.

 

Please - please - if you haven't anything kind or useful to add here then go and share your wonderful expertise on another blog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

So.........................

  • I bought the "Pearl" book.
  • I bought the "Consumer Survival Handbook".
    I visited sites linked and read, watched and listened.
  • I read and consumed all the helpful advice here
  • I read other advice on the Internet
  • I ignored rude people and traders and went ahead
  • I downloaded Form N1 and the GOV advice (I read it) and filled N1.
  • I took it to the local court to see if I'd filled it in correctly. "Everything is fine" said the experienced lady.
  • I bought a postal order for £205 (+ of course) and sent it off "tracked" paying more additional fees.

Sat and waited and, of course it was all sent back. :-(

 

It's a pity the "Pearl" guide book is out of date - at least the ebook is fine.

 

Nowhere was I told as follows: (received when I phoned Salford from a very pleasant, sympathetic lady.)

If you have two defendants named you can use the same claim form (great!) I did!

However you must list each individually as "J Bloggs trading as Joes Sweets" and the address;

and "Fred Bloggs trading as Joe's Sweets" and the address.

 

Of course there isn't enough room and the pdf has a captured font and font size.

(I can get round that)

 

Then two forms must now be completed with the name address of each defendant in the bottom box

i.e. on two separate forms.

 

I realise why now - because the address you enter goes into a box at the bottom left

which will nicely fit in a suitable envelope without any extra effort to be sent on.

 

Oh - and you need the court's permission for two defendants on another £100 form.

 

More printing ink, more paper, another envelope (I included three blank ones not returned.)

Tracking costs again.

 

Then another £335 if we go any further - potentially over £600. It's a wonder anyone bothers. :-(

 

People who've spent all their savings on something ( a posh TV - a top washer - an American fridge ) will be stuck.

 

I hope someone finds this useful and it saves them time and money. That's why we're here isn't it?

 

Regards to all

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again Oddjobbob - how's business?

 

In the nicest possible way - I don't need your advice - you don't know ALL the story which I've not printed here

because I know it's followed - although you should be able to work a few things out for your self.

 

If you've bothered to read this extensive dialogue you will know that the car's already back and filmed in situ as advised from here.

 

As I said before: "if you haven't anything kind or useful to add here then go and share your wonderful expertise on another blog."

 

You can find what others are saying on Facebook and Twitter; and check out the auction site they run and the comments.

 

The trader has to pay the transport and they haven't - £400

C.R.A. Ch2 [20] s8 Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them.

I don't know why it's so difficult to convince people that this is the law but there it is. I don't have to pay it.

 

The form(s) are done again - so I'll let people know what happens. There will be some here who don't make a fast buck out of motorists and are worried for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then another £335 if we go any further - potentially over £600. It's a wonder anyone bothers. :-(

 

Which you get (most of) back:

a) if you win, and

b) can enforce the judgment.

 

So, do your research to:

A) use court as a last resort,

B) ensure you:

i) get the claim form right first time,

ii) for a case you are highly likely to win, and

ii) against a defendant who you won't find has empty pockets or who can otherwise evade enforcement ......

 

Hello again Oddjobbob - how's business?

 

In the nicest possible way - I don't need your advice - you don't know ALL the story which I've not printed here

 

Followed to its logical conclusion, that means no one should be offering you advice, since you haven't given them the whole story.

 

 

As I said before: "if you haven't anything kind or useful to add here then go and share your wonderful expertise on another blog."

 

Yet previously it was:

 

Thanks oddjobbob - that's very kind and helpful.

 

So, either oddjobbob has suddeny decided to be unhelpful, or it is more the case that kingell only wants input when it provides what they want to hear, rather than if it is valid or not .......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello again Oddjobbob - how's business?

 

In the nicest possible way - I don't need your advice - you don't know ALL the story which I've not printed here

because I know it's followed - although you should be able to work a few things out for your self.

 

If you've bothered to read this extensive dialogue you will know that the car's already back and filmed in situ as advised from here.

 

As I said before: "if you haven't anything kind or useful to add here then go and share your wonderful expertise on another blog."

 

You can find what others are saying on Facebook and Twitter; and check out the auction site they run and the comments.

 

The trader has to pay the transport and they haven't - £400

C.R.A. Ch2 [20] s8 Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them.

I don't know why it's so difficult to convince people that this is the law but there it is. I don't have to pay it.

 

The form(s) are done again - so I'll let people know what happens. There will be some here who don't make a fast buck out of motorists and are worried for themselves.

 

I'm not in business I retired years ago.

 

If you don't want anyone's advice then dont come on here asking for it...unless of course you only want advice that agrees with your point of view, which is a fruitless exercise.

 

When i was in business I would have given you your money back the next day...because firstly its the right thing to do, and secondly anyone that takes an old prestige car to a main dealer to ask them whats wrong with it will forever be a troublesome customer and best avoided.

 

It may well be the law that they have to do this that or the other: but we live in the world as it is and not sometimes how we'd like it to be.

 

But its your money and your car, do as you wish, I really don't care any more

 

Followed to its logical conclusion, that means no one should be offering you advice, since you haven't given them the whole story.

 

 

 

 

Yet previously it was:

 

 

 

So, either oddjobbob has suddeny decided to be unhelpful, or it is more the case that kingell only wants input when it provides what they want to hear, rather than if it is valid or not .......

 

Bazza...you beat me to it by seconds!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys. In the know,

 

Trying to give this guy any help and guidance is pointless.

 

He's relying on the CRA and convieniently missing out on the small print as regards age mileage and commensurate small print as like a lot do.

 

In addition it would appear to be a bitter old man with champagne tastes and beer money who seems to think that by being a law society delegate he has some sort of qualification as to being right.

 

The reality is that there are certain rights that apply but have to be applied in the right way.

This as seems to be continually pointed out to him,

is commensurate with age and mileage

yet is continually ignored and derided.

The law cannot possibly overide worn out as if it did I,d be having a field day .

 

ANd as regards a law society delegate read mini mice as In the legal field

I have considerably more clout than ever he and his so called helpers here could ever think of!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazzas

 

I've been here for many years (more than many) and found it very helpful.

Sadly this is no longer the way forward for help for me and anyone else in the same predicament.

 

I thought I could help others from my experience.

 

"you haven't given them the whole story" Rubbish - look back!!

 

"Thanks Oddjob" was an error - I misread the blog. The advice came from some one else.

 

I see you are a gold account holder. God bless you and good luck. You really should read what's gone before.

 

I've made several donations to this site before because I thought it was all worthwhile. I've had very useful advice which I've adopted.

 

Sadly now I'm very disappointed and I will return only once more after the case and then I won't be back.

 

There are many who could benefit from my current experiences which is what this site is all about and several instances have been quoted in my evidence against some deceitful rogues who stole from a handicapped pensioner.

 

So, either oddjobbob has suddeny decided to be unhelpful, or it is more the case that kingell only wants input when it provides what they want to hear, rather than if it is valid or not .......

 

 

Oddjob is not being helpful he's obviously attempting to avoid his friends in the trade from paying for what they actually owe.

 

Obviously because this is a popular site there are blanks in what I have contributed. Frankly your gold comments are inappropriate.

 

Perhaps you feel that Oddjobbob should be encouraged in his derogatory contributions - I assume he has contributed and wants further encouragment.

 

Me - I'm off - forget it - I'll be back after the trial if it ever happens and I'll post my last help for other subscribers. (Spits in bin - stupid response)

 

I see Heliosuk from the trade is back

Go and play with you cars.

You're a trade mechanic who profits from this environment.

Read my last contribution.

Richard Cranium springs to mind.

 

Sadly - I'm off! What a silly load of misinformed and greedy contributants to this site. :-(

I've spent several £100s of my pounds pursuing this. I expect to get them back!!

 

Personal messages might be replied to if they're not from the dealer underworld and I guess there are many here.

Many thanks for all the sensible help I've had. Now I'm off - trial soon.

 

Go away Heliosuk and play with your dealer friends - I've already posted I'm off - how sad this site is with people like you..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi kingell

 

Please remember it is up to you whether you use the advice given or not and that CAG is a Self Help Forum

 

Also bear in mind the time of year as we are a voluntary community.

 

You can go into your user cp and simply place those users on ignore or you could simply not respond to those user

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

"you haven't given them the whole story" Rubbish - look back!!

 

I've "looked back". That comment (that you hsven't given the whole story) was based on:

Hello again Oddjobbob - how's business?

 

In the nicest possible way - I don't need your advice - you don't know ALL the story which I've not printed here

where you say people don't know ALL the story.

What's the difference between "you haven't given them the whole story" and you saying they "don't know ALL the story" (as you've not given / 'printed' it).......

 

I've made several donations to this site before

 

I'm not aware of who has made donations (or not).

I don't even know who (if anyone) on the site team has that information (and I'm not on the site team), and I suspect it makes no difference to:

a) the responses people get on threads, and

b) how any complaints are responded to.

(Nor, IMHO, should it .........)

 

I see you are a gold account holder.

 

.............

 

Frankly your gold comments are inappropriate.

 

 

What 'gold comments'?.

 

I am a "gold account' holder, merely by dint of the number of posts I've made.

It is automatic, something I have no control over, and a 'status' that I've never asked for and (to all extent and purposes) is pretty meaningless ; it is possible to be a 'gold account' member with:

i) 5,00 posts, all incredibly germane, entirely focused and 100% accurate and useful, or

ii) 5,000 posts, all incorrect / unfocused / irrelevant.

 

I hope I tend to the former, rather than the latter, but my suggestion is that the content of the posts is what is worth paying attention to, rather than their number, or an "account status" based purely on that number.

 

So, in summary:

a) you were the person saying you hadn't given the whole story,

b) Don't focus on irrelevancies such as

i) the fact you've given donations, and

ii) an 'account status' based on such a raw measure as post count.

 

Bottom line : you've been given advice on why you may not be able to rely on the CRA in the way you hope. You haven't seemed to acknowledge that advice (or posted why it is incorrect).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new, though I've followed this site for years. This thread is now made up of one third people having a go at each other. There's no longer any advice. Its disappointing and not what I, and I should imagine most other people, want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so what is your advice for when (as will happen) there is a divergence of opinions,

and when the OP focuses on the individuals giving the opinion that differs from the answer they'd hoped for,

instead of debating why they think that divergent advice is wrong?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no trade friends I wish to protect, now or ever.

 

In many posts on other threads I have criticised the car trade too...it really does have a full share of rogues, and they will get no support from me.

 

However, there are two worlds

 

1. The world where the law is the law and everyone abides by it and any debts are paid, no one parks on yellow lines and you can leave your doors unlocked because there are so many policemen on the beat and everyone is honest anyway.

 

2. The commonsense world where life is what it is and not sometimes what we would like it to be:

 

Now, the op may well get a judgement for the full amount he says he is owed, I tend to agree that this car dealer is far from proper. However, getting judgement and getting paid are two different things, and going on the variuos limited companies the garage bloke has been involved in, I doubt there will be a paid judgement.

 

Which is why my advice was to settle.

 

But the Op op only wants answers that agree with his opinion: so its a waste of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The advise given is solid, and it's a real shame that the OP decided to pick and mix the advise to fit his own narrative. Is there any more left to this thread now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see Heliosuk from the trade is back

Go and play with you cars.

You're a trade mechanic who profits from this environment.

Read my last contribution.

Richard Cranium springs to mind.

 

Well Kingell I'm a bit brighter than you think!

 

Apart from you trying to call me a dick head (Richrard =Dick and Cranium =head) your assumptions are well away from the what you think.

 

I'm far higher than a mechanic and in fact a principal engineer who determines life cycles of cars. In addition I'm also an expert witness for cases such as yours. All you are is nonsensical person with a gripe against people giving good advice and warninings, along with trying to make out you have some standing.

 

The reality is you are nothing like the rest of us who asked for help and when it was offered threw it back with insults. The trade also has a voice and if this is a free and open forum then they are and should be allowed to voice their opinion.

 

Frankly, having looked at your posts you have contributed nothing positive to any of them unlike a lot of the people who have tried to help you which you choose to deride and criticise.

 

I for one will be glad to see the back of you as you never add anything to help you. You lie and are vauge and then you criticise.

 

So the reality is that you will probably succeed in your endeavours but if you don't then come back here crying.

 

Whilst you have asked me not tom post anymore, I'm asking you not to post anymore like you have stated as all you do is wind people up who could spend better time supporting better cases let alone more genuine one!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think he'll get a judgement for the full amount as the car dealer will probably not even attend, so judgement by default.

 

Getting the judgement paid is an entirely different ball game: its all very well watching 'can't pay we'll take it away' but they don't show many failures because it doesn't make for good TV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Quite agree Oddjobbob but we need to remember that the changes in the rules did not change the "commensurate with age and mileage"

 

 

This is the main problem in my mind. It's a subjective guide line. I this case my firm belief the dealer complied but it seems the op feels he is qualified to determine the life cycle of a car as he is a delegate to a law society conference.

 

 

Now that to me as someone who sits on committees that determine how things should be is rather odd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...