Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
  • 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

Mercedes used car mis sold


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1881 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 I Â’m new to this Site!

It was highly recommended to me by a good friend who’d benefited from advice on the site.

 

moving on to my issues with Mercedes Benz!

 

Purchase date of my used Mercedes end of June 2018.

mileage on date of purchase approx 34000 miles.

sold by authorised Mercedes dealership in Southend-on-Sea advertising full Mercedes Benz service history.

price paid £12895.

No finance.

Paid in full.

Thats the basics regarding the sale.

 

I test drove the car several days before completing the purchase.

Having previously owned a Mercedes E-Class i was able to compare its drivability to that and all seemed pretty good.

I raised some issues that I wanted addressed before completion of the sale.

Brakes felt a little soft - dealership agreed to rectify.

Minor dents to body work - dealership agreed to remove.

Front passenger side tyre uneven wear and splits in outer wall - dealership agreed to replace.

Aftermarket satnav installtion agreed with dealership as part of sale.

 

On collection of the vehicle it had been polished and prepared as expected.

I had no reason to doubt the agreed works hadn’t been completed as agreed.

I completed the hand over process.

I was not shown the historical service or MOT’s records at any stage.

 

The sale representative stated that the vehicle was recently serviced, MOT’d, was originally sold by them and they knew the history of the vehicle.

Id asked a little more when I was advised I would be the 3rd keeper of the vehicle.

He advised me the vehicle had been on PCP finance twice which had been terminated and the vehicle returned to them but was clear if finance.

I had no reason to doubt any of the information presented to me.

The handover was completed and I left in the vehicle.

 

In summary since taking ownership of the vehicle I have experienced poor level of after care,

I’ve found a variety of issues with the vehicle and despite many emails to the dealership I rarely received an answer back.

 

One major issue was the gearbox which would judder on deceleration.

The car was 6 years old on collection with approximately 34000 miles.

I had subsequently found out that Mercedes recommend the gear box for this vehicle type should had a transmission fluid change at 5 years or 70,000 miles.

There was nothing in the vehicles history to show this had been done.

 

It cost me £350 to get this done at Bishops Stortford Mercedes.

Southend Mercedes ignored my emails in relation to this issue and never once responded.

It was only when I took the car in for this fluid change I found out the vehicle had an outstanding recall from 2016.

Mercedes Southend would have known about this because it’s on the vehicles electronic records and they supplied two letters from Mercedes in the paperwork yet they didn’t carry out this remedial works before they supplied it to me.

 

Following a series of issues with the vehicle I had become very dissatisfied with the Mercedes brand.

Having just bought a Mini for my wife I decided to part exchange my vehicle for a similar vehicle.

 

I enquired about a couple of vehicles with dealerships across the UK and sent them the details of my vehicle to get a part exchange value.

To my horror I was contacted by both dealers questioning the vehicles MOT history.

 

I was advised that the mileage between 2015-2016 had gone down and not up.

I was asked if I had supporting service records that would support this was a mistake.

 

I then discovered looking at the paperwork supplied by Mercedes that the service history was not with Southend Mercedes as they’d indicated it was but a 3rd party garage.

The service history in fact supported the mileage had gone backwards between 2015-2016.

 

The history is as below

 

Mot -

2015 - mileage 21293

2016 - mileage 13662

2017 - mileage 31552

 

mercedes didn’t give me the April 2018 certificate.

 

service history mileage.

 

2014 - 16107 Mercedes

2015 - 21293 carried out same date as MOT - 3rd party garage

2016 - 13662 carried out same date as MOT - 3rd party garage

2017 - 31549 carried out same date as MOT - 3rd party garage

 

to anyone one looking at the history of the vehicle there would be concerns regarding the vehicles history.

Mercedes policy is to visually check the odometer and check the ECU and print out the mileage information prior to resale.

I have ask the dealership to provide this but as yet this has not been supplied.

 

even if they provide this information it’s my view the vehicle has been mis sold.

The service history was not with Mercedes as I was informed.

I wasn’t given the most recent MOT certificate from 2018 which would list all the previous MOT mileage data.

If presented to me at the time it would have highlighted the inconsistent mileage.

 

Ive been informed by two dealerships that they will not buy my vehicle based on the error on the MOT regardless of any data provided by Mercedes.

The mistake recorded on the MOT cannot be changed.

All records are electronic and final.

 

Southend Mercedes have been dismissive about the issue just stating it’s clearly a mistake.

Mistake or not I now have a vehicle I cannot sell and was mis sold to me by an approved Mercedes dealership.

I have contacted Mercedes head office in Milton Keynes raising to raise a complaint.

Their response is pending.

 

Am I wrong to expected a full refund?

Am I wrong to expect Mercedes to refund my service, gearbox fluid and replacement tyre costs for a vehicle I wouldn’t have purchased if they’d presented the full history to me?

 

I believe 110% that Mercedes Southend have breached the contract of sale for this vehicle and failed to adhere to Mercedes own values.

Having read a few things on the net Mercedes could offer me a like for like replacement.

I don’t want any further dealings with this brand.

If they do try to offer me this as a solution can I reject this offer and demand the compensation I want?

 

In 1998 I owned a used Ford KA which was about 18 months old.

After 6 months ownership I was giving the car a good clean and noticed a parts sticker on the rear axle which was dated about a month before I bought the car.

I was concerned I’d been sold a car by ford that may have received a significant repair.

 

They were fantastic taking the car back without any hesitation.

They gave me the choice of similar vehicles, higher spec and less mileage!

 

So far all I’ve had from Mercedes is them trying to squirm out of their responsibilities to rectify this situation.

I’ve been passed to 3 different managers in the two days since I raised the complaint.

No one wants to take positive action to resolve the situation!

 

Sorry this his was a long post but I’m incensed by Mercedes Southend poor customer care!

 

Any advice or input on the matter would be appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Stefan.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

moved to the vehicle retailers forum

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

Give them pressure and you'll get your money back.

This mileage discrepancy is not best advertisement for mercedes and if found that the car has been clocked it's downright fraudulent.

In any case, they sold you a non resellable car because of the dodgy mileage.

Anyone with a bit of sense would stay well clear from this car, so you are at a substantial loss.

Get down to business, demand a full refund and get the ceo involved.

Threaten them to contact mercedes in Germany, trading standards, consumer direct, the army, the pope and anyone who has ever accessed the internet.

They'll give you the money back.

Much more easily, if you paid by credit card you can do a simple section 75 and get all of your money back, even if only part payment was made by cc

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...