Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unbelievably I can't find it, I will have a really good look for it when I have a bit more time on my day off this week. AS a side note, I emailed them offering a token payment to settle the account and avoid court action, which unsurprisingly they have declined. However there reply states:  A Claim was accepted on 19 June 2024 which means we cannot set up a payment plan just yet. You should have received a claims pack from the Court. We would ask for this to be completed with your offer of repayment and returned to either ourselves or the Court.  You have 21 days for this to be completed and returned in order to avoid a Judgment by Default. This means we would need to receive this by 10 July 2024. I was under the impression it was 19 days from date on the claim form. which was the 14th, which would be 3rd July. Could I use this against them as it seems like they are giving me false information in the hope of getting a judgement by default?
    • when is your mediation? honestly I don't think that the ups case is much use actually because it concerns third party rights BUT  as we know now the contract for packlink is direct and there are no third parties rights at all so you don't need it, and frankly the really helpful one will be from @occysrazor case but I don't know if they have it. expect evris mediation to be a complete fail yes
    • jk2054: I have ensured there's not reference to the third party rights in the updated letter of claim. BankFodder: thanks for the edits and information. I understand the Consumer Rights Act prohibits EVRi's attempts to avoid liability in their duty and care of accepting to deliver my parcel according to Section 57.  They have accepted to carry my parcel even though I have identified it as a laptop and specified the value so they must take reasonable care to deliver the parcel or face the consequences if it were lost as it seems to be in my case! I hadn't originally referenced Section 72 because of EVRi didn't offer any insurance whether free or for me to purchase. I understand that if I were to have any sort of insurance from EVRi then Section 72 refer to the rules of such secondary contracts. Is this section indicating that the insurance may reduce my rights or remedies to recourse to full compensation if I had been offered and purchased such insurance?  Is it beneficial to include this in the letter of claim (and subsequently reference both Section 57 and 72 in the MCOL?) although it might not be pertinent in my case?  Perhaps this is just to reinforce that in general EVRi and other couriers are taking such liberties with their customers so it is to send a message that they are breaching both sections? I made a few minor edits to the letter of claim but mainly grammatical type stuff and to keep consistent font, black colour, but the edits you provided are included and are extremely helpful and are putting me in a good position to email and post the letter to EVRi this week and get the ball rolling. Thanks. Evri letter of claim.pdf
    • Thank you for getting back to me I will do my best to get hold of the claim form tomorrow  When I spoke to MCOl on friday I asked for the extra 14 days so penty of time Onlymeagain
    • Hi, From everything I've read about how EVRi handle mediation, and given I intend not to budge on my position, I am preparing for court. Having read the the full WS and court bundl @occysrazor kindly supplied, I am wondering what value adding the Jamie Bradbury v UPS Limited has?  Obviously this case was lost by the claimant and the ruling clearly goes against the Farooq case and more recently @occysrazor's.  Is the case to include it simply to showcase my argument as being well rounded? Interested in your opinions. Many thanks, Sam 
  • 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

Px'd motorhome. Dealer now asking for money for damp weeks later


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2283 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 all,

 

First post after hoovering up the info here, thought i'd as my query for clarity.

 

I bought a new motorhome. Part of the deal was to PX my old one. I accepted the dealers valuation of my motorhome, sight unseen on their part. On the day of the exchange, we handed over our docs, full service history and importantly the habitation inspection reports done yearly one of the checks is to check and report for damp. These came back without issue and we have always been happy in the knowlege that the van is in good shape.

 

we then exchanged paper work, and shown the van. overall there over 2hr 15 mins of which just 40 mins was the actual signing and showing. I asked if he had looked at out van and was happy. He said yes.

 

Happily we drove off. over 2 weeks later and the dealer now saying there is damp in the van, we should pay to put this right. First news to me and came as a shock.

 

1) Are they allowed to demand more money long after the deal

2) If 1. is yes, how long does a dealer have to ask for more money? What if they then decide I owe them more later for other issues, am i liable?

 

Thanks all

 

M

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not your problem. They inspected the vehicle, and had your inspection reports as well. It sounds liek they havent taken care of it, and given the recent bad weather, just left it out, possibly with a window or door open/cracked.

 

Can you name the dealer please.

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

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The dealer has got no chance. They had the opportunity to inspect the vehicle including metering for any damp and accepted the vehicle at the agreed value after that inspection.

 

If the vehicle wasn't what they were expecting, that was their chance to refuse the deal. They can't now come back to you and attempt to change that deal.

 

The rule Caveat Emptor very much applies here.

 

 

The only problem that I can see is if you ever need to go back to that same dealer again in the future for something with your new motor home. Although it would be unwise on their part, they might try to do something silly.

 

I'd use a different dealer for servicing etc in the future. Just in case.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:cheer2::cheer2:

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 am not qualified to comment on the legalities , but as a caravanner of over 40 years experience I can comment on the damp situation .

First and foremost any caravanner and motorhome owner will be acutely aware of the problems of damp , more so dealers .

A simple damp testing meter can be purchased from Amazon for as little as £10 . it beggars belief that a dealer would buy in a caravan/motorhome without performing this simple test .

 

Each time I have traded bought or sold a caravan , the first thing done was , out with the test meter .

It is a great tool for getting the price reduced , and often the problem can be a simple fix ,

 

Good luck in rejecting these chancers , because they know the next buyer of your traded motorhome , will want a serious reduction in price .

 

Once cured , dampness can take up to a year to dry out , I have had problems with the mastic sealant on one of the windows in my present caravan , the window was resealed 18 months ago and it has taken until now for the damp reading to be normal .Ventilation when the vehicle is not in use is very important .

 

All these type of vehicles have a certain amount of dampness , due to cooking , living and sleeping ,hence there is an acceptable level of moisture , above which the vehicle can be considered damp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

all liability passed over to the dealer when you signed the vehicle over. They are proferssionals so expected to know their business so any attempt at a claim will always fail, even if you failed to point out anything you were aware of. They could have asked you specifically if they had any doubts but they didnt.

 

Dont feel sorry for them, they will still make money, just as not as much as they hoped for so no moral reason to help boost their profits either

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for the advise and experience all. much settled now and awaiting the next call from the dealer. I really hope he sees the error and its fades into a horrible few days. it has been a stressful few days full of sleepless nights. after borrowing to our limit to buy the van finding over 4000£ is beyond impossible.

 

you lot are great will keep you updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to find a single penny. Stop worrying.

 

There's nothing that the dealer can do if you say "Not my problem"!

 

If they tell you they can or will do something, they are either misinformed or lying.

 

 

As I said, it's Caveat Emptor. Which is the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made.

 

If they didn't or missed something. Unlucky!

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...