Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • deal with it IF it ever happens...
    • Hi everybody else who has suffered from this terrible trader! I will post all of the details that I have found out about him - sorry, I got carried away by my rant. I need to look them up in my book, so will do it this evening. I have created a new thread - thanks for the advice.
    • Well, we have also been done by Yewtree Cars/James Harrison! We bought a Land Rover Discovery from him off a dealer site on 28th December 2020. He advertised it as 1 loving owner (true, I tracked him down on Facebook, really nice guy!)   throughout the advert WOW full dealership service history, WOW new cambelt, WOW new MOT, WOW full valet including decontamination clean WOW, WOW, WOW!!!   We paid £4500 for the car plus £280 for delivery from Solihull to Winchester. He sent 3 texts reminding us to ‘look after the delivery guy cuz he’s a top man’! Soon worked out that HE was the delivery guy!   They dropped the car off and scarpered. It was dark when it arrived, initial thoughts were it was disgusting inside. I have never seen such a filthy interior. He even left his sweet wrapper inside.   He drove the vehicle down to us (we thought that we were paying for a transporter). It was running on fumes, so we took it out to get fuel. Straight away noticed automatic gearbox slipping. Not a good start.   Next day messaged dealer asking for the receipt, twice, he said that he was in Dubai (in his dreams!) for 2 weeks but would send it when he got back. Before he delivered the car, he said that if we weren’t happy he would personally come and collect it.   Sent him a message (I like to keep proof of conversations) to say that we certainly weren’t happy and wanted to return it. His reply was - SOLD AS SEEN, YOU GOT A CHEAP CAR!   Thinking we would have to cut our loses, we had a new gearbox put in, only to find that the crankshaft had also gone and then the bottom part of the engine had to be replaced. Also the suspension at the front was leaking oil (mentioned as an advisory on the previous mot, which he said had been done). He forged an entry in the service book saying that it had just had a cambelt change (false Land Rover stamp), confirmed by previous owner and Land Rover.   So, after 8 weeks of being at the garage and £7000 - YES £7000! later we certainly did get a cheap car from him. Are we going to let this go? NO!   I have found out his real name and I am going to pursue him through the court until I get this money back. He is the worst kind of confidence trickster, a liar and a thief.   We will have no hesitation in scouring Solihull for him, whatever it takes.  
    • So for various reasons, which 'm happy to discuss and debate, largely driven by the available sites apparently being O/AZ, and with the 2nd dose being 10-12 weeks after the first O/AZ apparently giving very little protection from the new strains appearing O/AZ efficiency apparently being about 55-65% with one dose and Pfiser giving much better and wider protection from a single dose I'm NOT going for the O/AZ and giving up the chance of faster better protection from pfiser even if it means waiting a couple of weeks.    
    • @Andyorch   I didn't know that. Thank you.
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • 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
      • 33 replies

Revisited civil claim ***Claim Discontinued ***


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 976 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

Are you misunderstanding what we asked for? the claimant is the person or entity suing your friend, we dont need to know anything about the friend.

Reason for wanting to know this has been made but perhaps not fully. ONY THE PERSON WHO HAS SUFFERED THE LOSS MAY SUE so if a store then the store can sue. If the claimant is a third party (not to be confused with the solicitors acting for the claimant) then they dont have a right to do so (locus standi) so their claim will fail if this right to be in court is challenged.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Can you send me a message as a pm? I have had thoughts and discussion regarding one of my earlier posts that may have a better result than arguing about quantum for damages. You currently disallow people from mailiing you so I cant just drop it on you.

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

Quick update, after all that it went out in a bit of a whimper.

 

Witness statements sent within the prescribed time but nothing was received, then a notice of discontinuance arrived, thanks again @ericsbrother and for those interested the claimant was £££land

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread title updated.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's clear they used the court system in the hope they trip you up with cpr and win by default,

 

out of interest what would of happened if witness statements are not received within the prescribed time?

 

i could be wrong but i get the feeling they had no intention sending their witness statements and made a decision to quit based on the defence that was submitted, was it that they were never going to be able to prove such a loss for the so called case costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, no WS from the claimant would mean no evidence to challenge hence the respondent could ask for a strike out.

 

 

Can I ask, did any of the recovery companies (RLP/DWF et al) get involved or was this a direct action from the claimant? For the life of me, I cannot see why this store would have followed this action after the case from 2012

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Claimant was CRS...not ££££££land ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
Claimant was CRS...not ££££££land ?

 

To make clear, £££land was the claimant, CRS was the provider of threatograms, they gave up after 5 letters, then 2 threatograms from £££lands solicitors before they issued the court claim.

 

ps the answer i gave was to this.

 

Can I ask, did any of the recovery companies (RLPicon/DWF et al) get involved or was this a direct action from the claimant? For the life of me, I cannot see why this store would have followed this action after the case from 2012

Link to post
Share on other sites

they did this because they were badly advised or encouraged to by either CRS or the solicitors. Once the push came to the shove the other parties will have hidden behind a wall and then said "that isnt what we advised you to say" when it clearly was. They were all hoping for a quick kill and when they got to see that it would be defended they cut their losses, which at this point would have been more than they could ever gain.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...