Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

When is a "Trader" not a trader ??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2107 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

Recently bought an older car for the "Boss" and have had bother with it.

 

Guy I bought from refuses to repair the car which has developed an MOT failure problem on day 1.

 

Seller claims to be a private seller and advertised as such on Gumtree.

 

Found out this guy has a vehicle repair workshop of sorts and sells the odd vehicle mainly sourced from his brother who is a bona fide trader.

 

Am taking him to small claims court if he doesn't pay repair by local garage.

 

Beware motor traders in Kirkcaldy Fife, bearing the same name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the basis of what you say, he is a trader.

 

Make sure you describe him as such on your claim form.

 

Joe Blogs (a trader)

 

And then again in the body of the claim.

 

Also you are entitled to reject the car completely for a defect in the first 30 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends as to why he had that car in the first place.

 

Chances are he bought it to tart up and sell on but will claim that he bought it for his wife and she didnt like it so sold it on.

as this sort of thing is as old as the hills no judge will be impressed with that so yes, he is a motor trader.

 

However, if it was his car for say a year then he has the same rights as anyone else to sell his personal property

but if the fault was there when you bought it he would have a hell of a job in claiming he didnt know about it,

being a professional mechanic and all that so still liable for making good or risk a claim for misrepresentation of the condition of the vehicle

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think from a legal point of view is that if the same said person can be proved to have sold more than 6 vehicles over 6 months then they are deemed to be a trader. I can't remember the exact numbers that trigger it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see a link to the authority for this - but in the meantime I think that this is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here's a start.

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/sell-my-car/frequently-asked-questions/trade-seller

 

And here's another perhaps a bit more informative.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1085769

 

Whilst neither is official it does suggest that over 6 cars in a year and the sellar would be considered a trader.

 

And here as well:

http://www.tradingstandardswales.org.uk/prosecutions/2015JanMerthyr.cfm

 

Now this article is interesting as it implies a sale of approximately once a month is considered a trader as I originally pointed out and is a report on an official trading standards case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Fault is the coil pack which illuminated the engine management light----an MOT failure.

As you all know, this light can be temporarily put off by a computer----enough to not show at point of sale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 “Trader” means a person acting for purposes relating to that person’s trade, business,craft or profession, whether acting personally or through another person acting in the trader’s name or on the trader’s behalf.

 

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448203-2-Key-definitions-*

 

In previous legislation, the definition is referred to someone who deals in the course of business. This has always been interpreted by the courts is not being only the person's principal business, but in the course of any business.

 

For instance, a restaurant might sell off some of its equipment. Clearly it is not a catering equipment seller but if it sells off some of its equipment then that is considered to be a trade transaction and can fall within the protection of the Consumer Rights Act.

 

If you want specifically to talk about the trade in vehicles, then take as an example and ice cream seller who decides to sell his ice cream van. Clearly he is not a vehicle trader – but he sells his ice cream van and that would be classed as a trader the purposes of the act.

 

I think one could scarcely imagine an ice cream man selling six vehicles a year.

 

If the ice cream man sells his own personal car which he uses only for private purposes for his family then that sale is most unlikely to be considered as a trade sale.

 

I hope this clears it up

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...