Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • i dont think the reason why the defendant lost the case means anything at all in that case. it was a classic judge lottery example.
    • Hello, I will try to outline everything clearly. I am a British citizen and I live in Luxembourg (I think this may be relevant for potential claims). I hired a car from Heathrow in March for a 3-day visit to family in the UK. I was "upgraded" to an EV (Polestar 2). I had a 250-mile journey to my family's address. Upon attempting to charge the vehicle, there was a red error message on the dashboard, saying "Charging error". I attempted to charge at roughly 10 different locations and got the same error message. Sometimes there was also an error message on the charging station screen. The Hertz 0800 assistance/breakdown number provided on the set of keys did not work with non-UK mobiles. I googled and found a bunch of other numbers, none of which were normal geographical ones, and none of which worked from my Luxembourg mobile. It was getting late and I was very short on charge. Also, there was no USB socket in the car, so my phone ran out of battery, so I was unable to look for further help online. It became clear that I would not reach my destination (rural Devon), so I had no choice but to find a roadside hotel in Exeter and then go to the nearest Hertz branch the following day on my remaining 10 miles of charge. Of course, as soon as the Hertz employee in Exeter plugged it into their own charger, the charging worked immediately. I have driven EVs before, I know how to charge them, and it definitely did not work at about 10 different chargers between London and Exeter. I took photos on each occasion. Luckily they had another vehicle available and transferred me onto it. It was an identical Polestar 2 to the original car. 2 minutes down the road, to test it, I went to a charger and it worked immediately. I also charged with zero issues at 2 other chargers before returning the vehicle. I think this shows that it was a charging fault with the first car and not my inability to do it properly. I wrote to Hertz, sending the hotel, dinner, breakfast and hotel parking receipt and asking for a refund of these expenses caused by the charging failure in the original car. They replied saying they "could not issue a refund" and they issued me with a voucher for 50 US dollars to use within the next year. Obviously I have no real proof that the charging didn't work. My guess is they will say that the photos don't prove that I was charging correctly, just that it shows an error message and a picture of a charger plugged into a car, without being able to see the detail. Could you advise whether I have a case to go further? I am not after a refund or compensation, I just want my £200 back that I had to spend on expenses. I think I have two possibilities (or maybe one - see below). It looks like the UK is still part of the European Consumer Centre scheme:  File a complaint with ECC Luxembourg | ECC-Net digital forms ECCWEBFORMS.EU   Would this be a good point to start from? Alternatively, the gov.uk money claims service. But the big caveat is you need a "postal address in the UK". In practice, do I have to have my primary residence in the UK, or can I use e.g. a family member's address, presumably just as an address for service, where they can forward me any relevant mail? Do they check that the claimant genuinely lives in the UK? "Postal address" is not the same as "Residence" - anyone can get a postal address in the UK without living there. But I don't want to cheat the system or have a claim denied because of it. TIA for any help!  
    • Sars request sent on 16th March and also sent a complaint separately to Studio. Have received no response. Both letters were received and signed for.  I was also told by the financial ombudsman that studio were investigating but I've also had no response to that either.  The only thing Studio have sent me is a default notice.  Any ideas of what I can do from here please 
    • Thanks Bank - I shall tweak my draft and repost. And here's today's ridiculous email from the P2G 'Claims Dept' Good Morning,  Thank you for you email. Unfortunately we would be unable to pay the amount advised in your previous email.  When you placed the order, you were asked for the value of your parcel, you stated that the value was £265.00. At this stage the booking advised that you were covered to £20.00 and to enhance this to £260.00 you could pay an extra £13.99 + VAT to fully cover your item for loss or damage during transit, you declined to fully cover your item.  Towards the end of your booking on the confirmation page, you were then offered to take cover again, to which you declined again.  Unfortunately, we would be unable to offer you an enhanced payment on this occasion.  If I can assist further, please do let me know.  Kindest Regards Claims Team and my response Good Afternoon  Do you not understand the court cases of PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729)? In both cases it was held by the courts that there was no need for additional ‘cover’ or ‘protection’ (or whatever you wish to call it) on top of the standard delivery charge, and P2G were required to pay up in full for both cases, which by then also included court costs and interest. I shall be including copies of both those judgements in the bundle I submit to the court next Wednesday 1 May, unless you settle my claim (£274.10) in full before then. Tick tock…..    
    • IMG_2820-IMG_2820-merged.pdfmerged.pdf Case management was this morning. Here is the Sheriff’s order. Moved case forward to 24/05.   He said there was no signed agreement and after a bit of “erm, erm, yeah but, erm” when he asked them, he allowed time for sol to contact claimant.  what is the next step now? thank you UCM  
  • 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

First 6 Months, Who is responsible for faults


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2457 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

Good Afternoon,

 

Looking for a bit of advice.

 

I bought a new car in July last year.

 

 

It stutters and hesitates and can be quite dangerous when overtaking

never knowing when your going to loose power.

Fault is intermittent.

 

After 3 months placed into approved dealer.

They looked at it for about 5 minutes, never found fault (of course).

 

Just before the 6 month mark I complained to the finance company and informed them I sought remedy of the fault.

(Pretty much the exact words. I never said I wanted it Repaired or Replaced but 'sought remedy)

 

Finance company contacted the garage I went to 3 months previous and on this information closed down my complaint because on the basis of that visit deemed there was no fault with the vehicle.

 

 

They also stated their point of sale liability had expired which it had not because the contract was still under 6 months old.

 

 

Their conclusion was that I now get the fault repaired under the terms of my warranty.

 

I gave them an opportunity to review their position.

They maintained it and stated that this response formed their final response on my complaint.

 

I rejected the vehicle and raised a court action to enforce this.

 

Finance company are stating that the court action was raised prematurely and they were not given an opportunity to repair or replace the vehicle (under the 2015 act).

 

 

My argument however is that I did.

I sought remedy of the fault and they completely shutdown my complaint pushing the liability for getting it repaired on to me.

 

before I go on too much, thoughts?

Should the Finance Company have offered to have the car checked and attempt to repair the fault?

 

I think I am trying to work out the following.

 

Is the onus on me to find the fault or is the onus on the Finance Company as the trader (under the 2015act) to attempt to find and repair the fault when a complaint is raised?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

under the CRA act its their problem to investigate the faults FOC

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

under the CRA act its their problem to investigate the faults FOC

 

Which is what I would have thought too but it does not really say that in the CRA 2015. The most relevant section I can see is 23(2) as below.

 

(2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

 

 

 

This places a burden on the trader to repair it but not to investigate any complaint of a fault themselves. In my case they took a garages word from 3 months previous that they could not find a fault (that I stated in my complaint was intermittent) and used this to close down my complaint.

 

See what I mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

well that's their problem.

bottom line is under 6mts is for the retailer to investigate it FOC

outside of 6mts

you have to pay for an independent report which get refunded later.

I think you case is very good here

who are the fleecers?

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

Finance company in their first letter to my complaint said their point of sale liability had expired because it was over 6 months.

 

 

I reminded the of the maths (I was about 2 weeks under the 6 month period) and offered a chance to change their position which they refused.

 

They stated in the reply that any repairs required were now mine to carry out under the terms of the warranty.

 

I see it as a big cop out and they just wanted to make sure any fault found was after the 6 month mark as I was only about 2 weeks away from that.

 

It is GMAC I have raised an action against in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing to do with any warranty expiry

that's in addition to your rights under CRA does not replace them.

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

I completely agree. My concern just is that I never specifically requested a repair/replacement,. I never stated that under S23 of the CRA 2015 I demand a repair or replacement of vehicle XXXXX etc..... What I did do was raise a complaint stating all the symptoms, that it was intermittent and that I had previously tried to have it repaired by my closest approved dealership.

 

To me that is enough to raise the issue to the trader (GMAC) who then are obliged to investigate and attempt a repair of the vehicle. To do this I would expect GMAC to arrange someone to inspect the vehicle on THEIR behalf and report from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its not for you to poke whoever with the correct legislation IMHO

they are a worldwide trader and should know their responsibilities inside out.

 

and ofcourse the seller was an approved dealership too and par chance happened to use GMAC finances how strange....

 

you weer sold a pup on expensive finance

its theirs totally until your last payment

 

you wouldn't go and hire a taxi that broke down 10miles into a 100mls journey and be asked to pay the full fare

neither should you on a HP car.

 

dx

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

I'm not an expert by any means but I've spent a lot of hours on a similar question.

 

I would suggest you buy The Consumer Survival Handbook (Ebook) advertised above and also the Pearl & Goodman book usually advertised left - make sure you get the latest edition ( mine was 2008!).

 

I expect that you will soon meet Lawgisitics a solicitors firm which will try to bully you. Be careful if they ask you to return the vehicle because it's a ploy to prevent you recovering your money. They will say that you have "deemed to have it repaired."

 

They are dreadful bullies against consumers and usually win and brag about it on the Internet. Don't give in to them but be polite or a judge won't like it.

 

I'm off to court soon with my retailer and Lawgistics have disappeared. Look them up - they're all over the Internet bragging.

 

Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing to do with this case though this is gmac maindealer not a back street cowboy reseller

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...