Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
  • 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

Fault with used car purchased from chain dealership


Cmartino
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2066 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 everyone,

 

Thanks for your time.

 

on 26th May 2018 I purchased a 2014 Mercedes-Benz E220 from V12 Sports & Classics Hinckley. A large dealership with multiple branches.

 

I’ve owned the car now for just over two and a half months, and it has began to develop a loud metalic rattle on startup when the engine is cold. Initially I wasn’t too concerned as the car had a 128 point check from the AA prior to being sold and came with 3 months warranty.

 

after calling around a few Mercedes specialists, they all concluded the same point... the timing chain was failing.

 

I booked the car in to a warranty approved workshop I’ve used in the past and they diagnostic the issue as being the timing chain, they accordingly contacted the AA warranty or “Motorway Direct” seeking authorisation to repair the fault.

 

They responded with “ask the customer to give authorisation for a strip down and send us the findings”.

I obviously had no choice at this point, and to get to the point whereby they could supply the evidence the warranty company wanted, it was a complete engine removal and strip.

 

they send off all the relevant pics and videos to the warranty, whom come back to say we are sending and independent inspector to have a look at the car.

 

The inspector comes out and then submits a report to the warranty company suggesting it’s “Wear and Tear”.

The car has 92,000 miles, a full Mercedes-Benz service history and has never been late for a service.

 

I contested the decision since I’d now be forced to pay the £1650 bill to complete the job given the engine is now already out of the vehicle, but they said their decision was set.

 

Not feeling too concerned I contacted the selling dealership V12Sports and Classics feeling confident after reading they are liable for the first 6 months according to the consumer code, they came back after a few hours of deliberation to say they sided with the AA warranty and weren’t going to contribute or pay for the work and advised I seek assistance from my finance HP provider.

 

I’m at a total loss, I feel somewhat that my rights have been violated and have had wrong done to me here.

How can they class timing chain failure as wear and tear, if it’s stretched it’s failed... even then it doesn’t happen in the 2,000 miles or 2 1/2 months I’ve owned the car... what’s my rights here guys?

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what service schedule the chain is subjected to.

 

As far as I know, cars with chain instead of cambelt don't need replacing, but i might be wrong.

 

In any case you're right as the fault appeared within 6 months it is assumed it was present at time of purchase, but the dealer would argue that there was no noise and hence no problem at the time.

 

Of course nobody can predict what will happen inside an engine until it happens, so I think the AA is not at fault either.

 

Check with Mercedes about the chain and if it's not a serviceable part, then you might have a claim.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the Consumer Rights Act and in respect of any item you purchase which develops a defect within the first 6 months you are obliged to give one opportunity to repair the item after which it must be replaced or refunded at your option

write formal letter pointed this out and telling them that you are researching your consumer rights under the act

you should do this even if you think that they are agreeing to help you because you need to reserve your position

Link to post
Share on other sites

The retailer (the car dealership) is responsible to fix any faults within the first 6 months (the first 30 days afford the consumer the right to reject the vehicle if a fault occurs).

 

Stop messing around with other companies, you should simply be going after the dealership. Personally I'd give them one chance to make payment, then I'd issue a letter before claim affording them the opportunity to pay the invoice, failure to do so should lead to proceedings being issued.

 

I retail higher end vehicles for my own business, the law is very clear on the obligations dealers have to their customers. I'd say a majority in the motor trade will issue a pointless, worthless warranty to try to divert their obligations to customers, these ADR schemes are utterly pointless and biased towards the dealerships.

 

When I get the odd fault on a vehicle I've retailed, I'll ensure its repaired asap at no cost to the customer and as quickly as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update on this, thanks for everyone’s comments.

 

AA came back saying they won’t cover it under the ground of the vehicles “service life”, car has never missed a service all by the main dealer and 92,000 miles.

 

I contacted the selling dealership who said they agree with the AA’s decision and won’t be paying for the repair and I quote “because no part has actually failed and it was in fact just a noise, we won’t be covering it... at the end of the day they are used vehicles”.

 

I’ve raised the dispute with the finance company who I bought the vehicle via.

 

The garage the vehicle is being repaired at is also sending me an email stating they believe the fault to have been present at the point of purchase.

 

Any help on this id appreciate, here is an email I got from Mercedes-Benz regarding the timing chain

 

“Thank you for contacting Mercedes-Benz Customer Service regarding the change cycle of your timing chain. One of the main reason Mercedes-Benz use a timing chain is due to its physical properties that make it superior to the belt, as a manufacture we have done excessive testing of the chains and there is a possibility of the chain lasing the life of the engine this is why the is no set service schedule. We do advised that the is a possibility of the surrounding chain guids to wear creating noises and other characteristics that would indicate the timing chain need to be checked.

 

 

 

Should you have any further requirements please do not hesitate to contact me or any of my colleagues.“

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why aren't you listening? Stop messing around with worthless warranty companies that have no interest in paying out, send the invoice to the dealership attached to a letter before claim, allowing them 30 days to pay it, if they fail, then issue a County Court claim against them.

 

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is abundantly clear in that it sets out a retailer has to repair any defects within the first 6 months, the dealership cannot "opt out", that's the law.

 

Report them to trading standards also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t mislead this gentleman, you neglect to state the CRA proctects sellers and buyers equally. The CRA states very clearly faults which occur due to the age and mileage / fair wear and tear are excluded. End of.

 

If the retailer inspected the car thoroughly prior to sale and the customer has signed the PDI then he’s put a nail in his own coffin. The best chance he has is to ask for a contribution as a gesture of goodwill from the dealer.

 

Buyers of older, higher mileage used vehicles need to understand maintaining their car is their responsibility, not the retailers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why aren't you listening? Stop messing around with worthless warranty companies that have no interest in paying out, send the invoice to the dealership attached to a letter before claim, allowing them 30 days to pay it, if they fail, then issue a County Court claim against them.

 

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is abundantly clear in that it sets out a retailer has to repair any defects within the first 6 months, the dealership cannot "opt out", that's the law.

 

Report them to trading standards also.

 

Sorry I am listening, just completely new to chasing this through the appropriate legal channels, never been "done over" by a dealer before since I'd previously bought all my cars brand new from Vauxhall who've always bent over backwards in terms of customer support and warranty.

 

I've raised the issue with the finance company, who are presently chasing it on my behalf. Should I also send a letter or email to the dealer with a copy of the invoice or something?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I am listening, just completely new to chasing this through the appropriate legal channels, never been "done over" by a dealer before since I'd previously bought all my cars brand new from Vauxhall who've always bent over backwards in terms of customer support and warranty.

 

I've raised the issue with the finance company, who are presently chasing it on my behalf. Should I also send a letter or email to the dealer with a copy of the invoice or something?

 

Thanks.

 

 

Update - dealer principle rang they’re paying for the work. Seems a coincidence he calls just hours after I went around leaving bad reviews on ever site they use.

 

Thanks for the advice everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...