Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm not sure that the person I spoke to at SLC was correct regarding the last deferment being 2011. I can see further payments.   I think I can see payments following on from that - I continued to pay what I thought was SLC company until 2015.   This I now think was Honours SLC, not SLC or Erudio.  Now I understand my 1st 1998 loan was transferred to Honours yet the other three were with SLC.    I know 100% I negotiated a deal with a DCA  to clear loan outstanding.     I've been searching old documents today, contacted Honours Student Loans to find proof of the payment to close the loan.     Someone from Link Financial called me back straightaway,  - so I'm now really worried I've opened a whole new can of worms.   They were really pushy for my info... I did not give them anything although now worryingly they have my number. Can they even try and go back on this...?    The only payment I can see to ever to Erudio was end of March 2014, under ESL limited.. which was taken without my knowledge using SLC  DD details.    I remember thinking it was a scam - so contacted my bank but I had noticed it after the payment had gone out.   I think by the time I had seen it the Bank  couldn't reverse it but all further payments were stopped, and I remember the bank even being really confused and saying it should not have happened.    I must have made contact with Erudio at this point - but there is nothing on their account files. There are notes - saying "surpress DAF request."     Erudio ( accoording to their own SAR)   sent a  Notice of Assignment had been sent the previous Autumn to my old address, which I never saw or received.    I'm looking at my address history and I was really conscientious with informing SLC - there is even a note 2 days after we moved house in 2013 and also when I changed my name to get married.   I'm adamant the Notice of Assignment was either not sent or sent to an old property, I also can't see why I would have made contact with SLC a few days after we bought a new house in 2013 - if it was not to inform them I had moved?       
    • Oh, and as it’s a pre-1985 agreement do they still have to provide a true copy of the CCA? It seems they are trying to use Regulation 9 of the CNC Regulations (which I haven’t heard of!) as a “get out of jail free” card.
    • Just to add a question – Also this you are paying your pay-as-you-go Sim card fees – correct?
    • Hello All   I am part PAYE and part self employed   my accountant has vanished and i think has immigrated but I only found out 2 weks ago.   Im stuck and cant find an accountant ebcasue they are all busy   So having to turn to you guys for advice   My income pre expenses from self employement is £56000       I bought a mac laptop for £1400   I paid my daughter who is 17 , £4900   I have  to have an indemnity. I forgot to mention to my accountant last year about my indemnity , so we did not enter ~£2700 on last years return of 2018-2019. Can I enter them onto the return from 2019- 2020?   Overall the total of my expenses is ~ 18000 ( fuel/travel/subsistence/stationary , daughter wages  ..etc)   Questions please   1. Can I claim the laptop as expenses. All of it? or part of it?   2. Is ~4900 to my 17 yr old daughter reasonable. She helped me on weekends etc as she studying for her A levels etc ?   3. Can I enter the indeminty figure that was missed on last years return ?   4. are expneses totalling ~18000 reasonable if my self employed figure before expenses is ~56000?   Would appreciate if someone with good knowledge can specifically reply to each point   Most grateful   panicking so much. called like 10 accountancy firms and all say we cant promise to get things done by deadline, so it seems I have to do everything myself this year online. they stared talking about forms 64-8 which I was totally clueless about     Please please Begging for advice      Thanyouxxxx              
    • Johnsons pooulist pratlers saying fishermen got the grate Brexit deal ... UK Fishermen docking and selling their catches in Denmark now aren't they
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Rejecting Used Car Within 30 Days **WON ** [FULL REFUND/RETURN OF TRADE-IN TOO]


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1144 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Evening all, hate to say it but I need some help and advice again.

 

I bought my wife a 62 plate Jaguar XF from Trade Centre Wales on the 6th November.

It's done 90k and HPI shows 2 previous keepers.

 

10k trade in, £10 on credit card, balance by debit card.

 

On the 7th, had trouble starting it. Press the button and the gear selector knob comes up and the dash lights up. After less than a minute, lights go out and knob retracts.

Several attempts to start it and same thing. Gave up. Came out half an hour later, tried again and it works ok.

 

Had the same problem on the 8th and 9th, intermittently, it simply won't start. It doesn't try to turn the engine, just shuts itself down.

 

It's an intermittent fault and there's no rhyme nor reason to it. Sometimes it's ok, sometimes it's not.

 

Over the course of the 3 days, it was also noted that the ECO stop/start system isn't working at all.

 

On the 10th, the new V5 arrives and shows 3 previous keepers, not the 2 that they advised.

 

I immediately sent them a rejection letter giving them 14 days to refund in full citing the V5 discrepancy and the 2 faults discovered to date.

 

They have emailed 3 times now, refusing the rejection and stating they want the vehicle in to check it and rectify any concerns I have. They have also told me in their last email that I can't reject as the faults are minor.

 

I've spoken to the bank re section 75 claim but they haven't got back to me yet.

 

Any advice on my next move?

Should I get a local garage to do an independent inspection? The owner has already seen the starting problem.

 

I'd appreciate any help or advice you can give.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you have misunderstood - before you purchased the car, it had 2 previous keepers, but now that you have purchased, it has 3?

 

Quite clearly states 2 previous keepers on the paperwork they provided. That should make me number 3.

Instead, new V5 came in with 3 previous, making me number 4.

 

However, apart from that, the vehicle is faulty.

They are trying to say the faults are minor.

I’m arguing that an intermittent starting fault isn’t minor and renders the vehicle not fit for purpose.

Would the non working stop/start system be a minor or significant fault?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a punter who has dabbled in buying and selling, but by no means expert, I think you will face a couple of difficulties making some of your points prevail

- generally garages & auctions do not own cars, and their statement of previous ownership reflects what the current/actual (DVLA recorded) owner would say, not what the car will become once sold. I don't know for sure if that is ethical, but I never questioned it, maybe because I was aware it happens and I always check the log before purchase (to check lots of facts)

- I also think there is a standard set of faults categorised a "major" that generally pertain to mechanical propulsion - engine, gearbox, drives type of stuff. Although the problem you mention, could be expensive to fix (or even diagnose), it may not be defined as "major". You'd probably find the definition of "major" in the context of your car in the guarantee paperwork.

- however, even if the fault is not "major", they need to put it right. For this, you'd need to comply with their request to "check & rectify". I think they get a set number of chances to get it right, and if they fail to do so, you then have a valid case. If you don't give them the opportunity to fix (in the absence of a "major" fault), you'll struggle to win the day. As I mentioned, I am not expert, but to my knowledge, that is the established process. Independent reports etc - I think you are wasting your time and money, and lets face it, anyone can get a report to say anything

- you have to consider that the fault may be very simple, and second hand cars always have minor issues - you don't know, nobody knows, but it may simply be a loose connection

- if I were in your shoes, I'd seek out the previous owner, and ask him two questions (i) did the fault exist previously, and (ii) did the seller know. If he obliged you with these answers, I'd hold them up my sleeve for a rainy day. In parallel, I'd let the seller do his best to fix.

Just amateur advice, hope it helps somewhat - someone else may know better. Good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have to disagree with what you've posted.

 

Consumer Protection Rights 2015, the goods (the vehicle) must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and free from any defect.

Intermittently the car won't start. So how can that be fit for purpose? A minor fault would not prevent use of the vehicle.

 

Not sure what you mean by checking documents, I did check the documents provided and it states very clearly, 2 previous keepers. When I told my wife that she'd be the 3rd owner, the garage didn't disagree.

It's only since the V5 arrived we've discovered they didn't provide correct information.

 

However, I'm not rejecting purely on the V5 discrepancy, I'm rejecting a faulty vehicle within 3 days of purchase. Well inside the 30 days allowed by the act.

After 30 days, I would have to let them have 1 attempt at repair before I could reject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“It's only since the V5 arrived we've discovered they didn't provide correct information. “

 

Why is that the garages fault? In your first post you state an HPI showed 2 owners....

 

Naturally, you viewed the “old” V5 held by the garage before purchase, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No old V5 was given to me. However, the dealer stated it had 2 previous keepers and the HPI report shows 2 previous keepers, not 3.

Again, I haven't used the V5 in my rejection, I simply gave all the information here that I could.

 

Now, if anyone can help with the rejection for the vehicle being faulty and what course to follow, I'd appreciate it.

I don't need any more comments on the V5, I've proved to the dealer that they provided incorrect information.

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

Quick update on this.

I have now received a full refund and my trade in vehicle back.

The garage admitted that I was entitled to a refund due to the faults on the vehicle.

Once I let them knew I'd raised a dispute at the bank, they were only too willing to sort things out.

 

No luck involved, simply used the Consumer Protection Rights 2015.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey glad cag helped

thread title amended

 

please consider a donation however small to keep us afloat for other s like you to come...

 

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

Points to take from here.

Major purchases, pay on a credit card, the deposit or £100 or so.

That means your covered for the full amount of the purchase under section 75.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...