Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Guys,   Following in from my 17 page thread, that dates back over ten years, I am starting a new thread, at the suggestion of the site team. My issue relates the a) service charges relating to the Leasehold flat I bought back in 2006 b) a Managing Agent who is of questionable abilities as a manager of our block of flats. The Managing Agent has claimed £6k in fees to which (I think, as does the new Landlord) he was not entitled. I am wanting to get it back, and/or the fees on my account calculating properly which would leave me with a credit balance.  I am recently in receipt of a 4th claim relating to this dispute, with two of the previous three going 'no where'. The other one they won in default on 2011, but I successfully had that set-aside.They have not given me the money back though. It all started due to poor management of the block, and it transpired upon scrutiny that the management arrangements appear to be unenforceable prior to 2014. It's very complicated. This information is required simply posted, and not as a PDF, so here goes:   1.       BlurredFX Service Charge Saga 2.       Sept 2006 a.       In 2006 BFX buys a leasehold flat. His solicitor advises him that Ground Rent is payable to Landlord-one and Service Charges are payable, but to be wary of the service charges, as he is unable to confirm how they are being administrated. b.       BFX is sent a bill for service charges from PQR Managing Agent. BFX enquires as the legitimacy of the service charges, but is unable to get a satisfactory answer. The service charge requests are not complicit with the required legislation – such as the name of the Landlord. They are served in the name of ABC Management Company Ltd c/o PQR Managing Agents. c.       ABC Management Company has two Directors, both residents of the block in which BFX resides and to which this dispute relates. d.       Landlord-one is absent, except for Ground Rent requests. 3.       2006-2009 a.       Despite written and verbal requests, BFX refuses to pay any service charges until ABC Management Company are properly authorised by Landlord-one – because without such, he has no recourse or way to complain. b.       Demands are not complicit with the legislation. c.       The property was not properly maintained. For example, the lease obligations for an internal redecoration every five years had no been met. The obligations to maintain the exterior of the had not been met, and the timber double glazing was starting to rot quite badly. 4.       2008/2009/2010 a.       TUV Managing Agent Ltd buys out PQR Managing Agent (a sole trader, I believe). They seem to operate interchangeably for a few years, using different headed paper along the way. They seem to be interchangeable. It is the same personnel. 5.       June 2009 a.       TUV Managing Agent LTD, on behalf of ABC Management Company Ltd, file a court claim against BFX. [CLAIM2009] b.       BFX asks them to fully particularise their claim, including asking for details of who authorised them to manage the building and various other pertinent questions. 6.       10th August 2009 a.       BFX sends CPR18 – request for information to TUV Managinig Agent c/o ABC Management Company 7.       2009 a.       Hearing is scheduled for Jan 2010 [CLAIM2009] 8.       February 2010 a.       There is a hearing. b.       Ref: [CLAIM2009] c.       From the Court: IT IS ORDERED THAT the claim be stayed to enable the Parties to endeavour to reach a settlement if no application is made to restore by Tuesday 6th April 2010, the claim be struck out 9.       24th March 2010 a.       TUV Managing Agent sends BFX an agreement to sign, agreeing to pay. BFX does not sign the document. 10.   2010 – 30th or 31st March 2010 a.       BFX attends a meeting with a Director of ABC Management Company and Director of TUV Managing Agent. b.       BFX outlines his position, and suggests a verbal agreement to pay from 2006-2010 once the management of the block is properly administrated – my preference being the ‘RTM route’. c.       The other people at the meeting do not appear to understand. 11.   1st April 2010 a.       TUV Managing Agent on behalf of ABC Management Company write to the Court, asking that the claim be restored, claiming BFX has remained silent. b.       Notice of allocation from the Court, dated 15th April, for a hearing in July. 12.   July 2010 a.       On the day, a lady at the Court informs BFX that TUV Managing Agent has been on the phone, and said that BFX has paid the money and to cancel the hearing. b.       BFX had not paid any money at all. c.       Nothing more is heard of [CLAIM2009] 13.   6th October 2010 a.       ABC Management Co c/o TUV Managing Agent send a letter, after the Freehold Reversion of BFX’s block comes up for sale. TUV Managing Agent outline three options – do nothing, RTM, or buy the freehold. b.       BFX opines that it is not good advice, but is ignored. 14.   December 2010 a.       BFX’s health starts to visibly deteriorate. 15.   Late April 2011 a.       BFX is blue-lighted into the regional hospital, as witnessed by Director of ABC Management Company. 16.   Early May 2011 a.       TUV Managing Agent, on behalf of ABC Management Company, commence a new claim against BFX – literally within a week or so of BFX going into Hospital! b.       This is [CLAIM2011] 17.   August 2011 a.       TUV Managing Agent and ABC Management Company are awarded Judgement in Default. b.       BFX remains critically ill in Hospital. 18.   September 2011 a.       Letter from BFX’s Mortgage Company-One to BFX b.       “We have been advised by TUV Managing Agent that your Ground Rent and Service Charges of £6k-ish has not been paid.” Iy goes on to say pay them. 19.   September 2011 a.       In reference to [CLAIM2011] a letter from TUV Managing Agent to BFX’s Mortgage Company-One states: b.       “As the managing agents of BFX’s Block, I write to advise you that your client, BFX, is in severe arrears and therefore is in breach of his lease. c.       “A County Court Judgement was served on August 2011 in the sum of £6k-ish. A Copy of the Judgement is enclosed for your reference. d.       “I therefore request that this payment is now made in full by your client within 21 days, failure to do so will result in further action being taken and a Section 146Notice [sic] being served on Mr Piggin” 20.   October 2011 a.       Letter from TUV Managing Agent to BFX’s Mortgage Company-One states: b.       “Further to your letter of 25th October 2011, please find below the details of the bank account to make payment of the outstanding service charge and ground rent for the above property” [BFX’s property] c.       Mortgage Company-one makes a payment to ABC Management Co c/o TUV Managing Agent, for the claim amount. 21.   January 2012 a.       Landlord-one sells his freehold to Landlord-two. BFX receives a letter from Landlord-one’s solicitor. It states: b.       “…we write to advise that the benefit of the receipt of the ground rent payable under such Lease has now been transferred to Landlord-two to whom all future payments of ground rent including all arrears and the amount due from 2st January 2012 shall be payable to and whose receipt shall be a full and absolute discharge under such Lease” 22.   February 2012 a.       Landlord-one sells his freehold to Landlord-two. b.       Landlord-two writes to BFX stating that he owes Ground Rent since 2006. c.       That letter from Landlord-two to BFX also states d.       “While we have no wish to disrupt and current workable management arrangements we do have concerns in that respect as the building is not being managed strictly in accordance with the Lease provisions and although we would have no great objection to ABC Management Company Ltd continuing with the management of the structural and communal areas of the building we would be happier if the present informal arrangement, which could in theory be discontinued at any time by any party, could be formalised either by a Deed of Variation being entered into in connection with each individual leaseholder or by a complete Deed of Variation being entere into by all parties. We hope you will support a Deed of Variation and would request your written views in that respect. e.       “We were in direct communication with PQR Managing Agent prior to completion of our purchase and enclose for your information copy letter written to that firm on 11th January 2012. PQR Managing Agent have confirmed they have never received any ground rent payments and they are raising our ‘insurance concerns’ with X Insurer.” f.        The letter referred to above also asks PQR Managing Agent to make certain material disclosures to X Insurer. g.       In his letter to TUV/PQR Managing Agent, dated 11th of Jan, Landlord-two also states, h.       “As management is current [sic] carried out by you on behalf of ABC Management Company Limited, who are not named in the Lease and therefore maintenance obligations are unenforceable against or by that company, you may wish to give consideration to:” It then proposes a) a deed of variation, or b) Landlord-two becomes a client of TUV Property Management, and long term management is done that way. i.         The letter from Landlord-two continues: j.         “Finally, while we appreciate that you are not authorised to collect ground rent and indeed we assume you have not therefore been collecting ground rent, can you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt that you have never collected any ground rent payments from any leaseholder in connection with this building or, if you have collected any ground rent payments, can you please let us have details of such payments.” 23.   October 2012 a.       BFX makes an application for the Judgement to be set-aside, an account of his being hospitalised almost constantly since April 2011. b.       A hearing is scheduled. 24.   January 2013 a.       There is a hearing, the Judgement against BFX is set-aside. TUV Managing Agent and ABC Management Company do not attend. BFX has until February to file his Defence and Counterclaim, which he does. 25.   March 2013 a.       AQ’s submitted, and hearing scheduled. b.       TUV Managing Agent, on behalf of ABC Management Company is ordered to pay the hearing fee. 26.   18th April 2013 a.       Court orders unless TUV Managing Agent, on behalf of ABC Management Company pays the fees, the claim shall be struck out. b.       Letter from the Court: BFX’s counterclaim remains listed for May 2013. There is a hearing, and TUV Managing Agent, on behalf of ABC Management Company fail to attend. 27.   May 2013 a.       After a hearing, where TUV Managing Agent and ABC Management Company fail to attend, the Court orders: “The claim be adjourned generally with the liberty to restore on the application of either party.” 28.   2nd half of 2013 and 2014 a.       Various letter from TUV Property Management, and meetings of residents. It is decided by Leaseholders in BFX’s block that we should exercise our ‘right-to-manage’. 29.   17th February 2014 a.       Letter from a solicitor dealing with the RTM progress, it says Landlord-two now has 28 days to file a response. 30.   4th June 2014 a.       BFX Receives a letter from TUV Property Management it states: b.       “Please find enclosed a new standing order form for BFX’s block. c.       “We have opened a new current account for BFX’s block due to the Right to Manage coming into effect in 1st July 2014 d.       “The new standing order is to commence on 1st July 2014…” e.       It continues with pleasantries about cancelling old SO etc. 31.   2nd July 2014 a.       The newly formed ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £3.3k, the description on the invoice being ‘Account Adjustment: Transfer from previous Management Company’ 32.   2nd July 2014 a.       The newly formed ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £3.6k, the description on the invoice being ‘Account Adjustment: For period 4th July 2014 – 30th September 2014’ 33.   28th July 20014 (1) a.       ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £3.5k, having added £12. It states ‘Account Adjustment: Title Register’. b.       IT ALSO SHOWS BFX’s FIRST PAYMENT of 1 month’s service charges to ABC RTM Company Ltd as ‘Payment Received’ 34.   28th July 20014 (2) a.       ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £3.8k, having added £360 court fees. It states ‘Account Adjustment: Court Fees’ 35.   28th July 20014 (3) a.       ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £4k, having added £120 in court fees 36.   11th August 2014 a.       The newly formed ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX adding another £85. Description: ‘HM Court fee as fee is £205 not £120 – difference’ 37.   August 2014 a.       Following another emergency admission to Hospital for BFX, ABC RTM Company Limited immediately file a claim [CLAIM2014] for alleged arrears from 2011-2014. Approximately £4k. 38.   November 2014 a.       From the Court: Claim [CLAIM2014] stayed until February 2015, by which time the Defendant is to serve his Defence and in default shall file and serve further medical evidence supporting his inability to do the same. 39.   September 2015 a.       Claim stayed until end of October 2015 40.   November 2015 a.       Claim stayed until Jan 2016 41.   8th January 2016 a.       BFX makes an application for summary judgement [of CLAIM2014] that the claim be struck out, as it is a relitigation of [CLAIM2011] 42.   Feb 2016 a.       Transferred to local Court. 43.   31st March 2016 a.       There was a hearing of my application (I think) b.       From the Court, re [CLAIM2014] c.       IT IS ORDERED THAT d.       The hearing of today’s date be adjourned e.       The Claimant to file and serve a fully Particulars (detailed) Particulars of claim [sic] to set out the basis to the claim, entitlement of the Claimant to recover sums from the Defendant, detailing sums recovered and any outstanding payment plus other details which the Claimand may advise to address by 22 april 2016 f.        The Defendant to file and serve a detailed defence addressing the Particulars of Claim in paragraph 2 above by 12 may 2016 g.       If the Defendant wishes the application of today’s date to be relisted (upon consideration of the fully particularised Particulars of Claim), the Defendant should write to the court, at the same time as filing a defence, with a copy of this order, asking for the Court to relist the application for hearing with an estimated length of 1 hour 30 minutes (30 minutes of it being reading time). In the event that the application is relisted, both parties to file and serve detailed statements addressing the subject matter of the application 7 clear days before the hearing. 44.   17th May 2016 a.       From the court: b.       “IT IS ORDERED THAT The Defendants application be relisted in accordance with the order made on the 31st March 2016 on Monday 27th June at 15:30pm with an elh of 30 minutes,not to be heard by telephone” [sic]” 45.   June 2016 a.       I think there was a hearing, possibly. I am looking for the paperwork. I attended the hearing directly from a different regional Hospital to the usual one, where I was being treated for a brain infection. We got our heads bashed together by a clearly infuriated Judge, Judge advised ABC RTM c/o TUV Managing Agents to get a solicitor, tells BFX to be clearer in what he says. Nothing further was heard. Until… 46.   7th April 2017 a.       BFX has an invoice for 1066.00 from TUV Managing Agent c/o ABC RTM Company Ltd 47.   August 2017 a.       BFX mortgage sold from ‘Mortgage Company-one’ to ‘Mortgage Company-two’ 48.   13th September 2017 a.       BFX received an invoice for £5,000 for his share for new windows to BFX’s block. It seemed complicit with s20 LTA 1985 etc. BFX pays £5k. b.       There was a lot of confusion during this process, I am pinning down the paperwork, but it was paid. The total invoice was not split as per the lease – Leaseholders were asked for funds on a per window basis, but the Lease says the total should be summed and divided by the number of units. c.       N.B. BFX’s flat is in a conservation area, and the price reflects expensive windows, as specified by local planners. There were other attempts to put in cheap, nasty windows, but BFX was able to stop this by making informal representations to the local Borough Council – who in turn contacted TUV Managing Agents, who in turn eventually put in a proper planning application for proper windows, which was approved. d.       There was a lot of confusion during this process, I am pinning down the paperwork, but it was paid. The total invoice was not as per the lease – Leaseholders were asked for funds on a per window basis, but the Lease says the total should be summed and divided by the number of units. 49.   12th October 2017 a.       BFX receives invoice for service charges (or statement of account): £4,800 approx. No payments are made by BFX 50.   25h September 2018 a.       BFX receives an invoice (or statement of account) for a total of £492. b.       It appears they have decided not to collect this amount 51.   March 2020 a.       Claim2020 from ABC RTM Company Limited c/o Company Director (not TUV Property Management) for £890 plus £70 Court fee. BFX has not been paying his fees because the management of the block is terrible.
    • Yes I know.  We would like the story posted up plainly on a post in a new thread with no attachment simply a step-by-step account of what happened and what led to the litigation. I think we can understand why this thread has gone on for 18 pages
    • I think he's hoping the attached pdf would be a satisfactory starting point for a new thread?
    • Please start a new thread so that you can post up a nice brief bullet pointed chronology of what happened which led to the litigation.
    • Hope it all goes well for her CB, let us know how she gets on.
  • Our picks

Verso owner

Problem with 2006 Toyota Verso semiautomatic car

Recommended Posts

I recently bought an 06 Toyota Verso semiautomatic 7 seater car from a second hand car dealer for £4000.

I bought it for a friend who does not have much money

- we are providing him with an interest free loan.

 

It was advertised on the Internet (Motors UK) and the dealer is about 195 miles from where I live.

From the description the car was excellent i.e. low mileage (47,000 miles), one lady owner, FSH, very good condition, new MOT, just serviced.

I checked the MOT history on the gov.uk website and it had an excellent history and the annual mileages confirmed that the 47,000 mileage figure was accurate.

 

I travelled to the dealer on the 18th March, had a test drive and bought the car.

I drove it home and parked it on my drive until Sunday 24th March as I had only insured it for the one day.

This allowed time for my friend to arrange insurance for himself.

 

He had a 30 mile drive in it that day and when he was nearly back home he texted me to say there was a problem with the car.

He was using it in automatic mode and it suddenly flipped into neutral when standing at traffic lights in town.

It was not possible to select any gear and the only remedy was to switch off the engine, wait for a minute or so and restart.

 

The same thing has happened to me when I drove it back to the dealer (see below).

In fact the car stopped on a busy main road at traffic lights about a mile from the dealer, causing significant disruption.

The common factors seem to be that the engine has to be thoroughly warmed up and stop-start traffic is encountered, hence this was not detected during the test run nor during the 195 mile drive home which is virtually all motorway/dual carriageway with no hold ups as it was evening time.

 

To cut the rest of the story very short,

I have "rejected" the car as we were well within the 30 day period and the car has been back at the dealers since 1st April.

The dealer says that we must have damaged the clutch in the time we had it (his local garage has told him this) and will not do anything as the clutch is not covered by the warranty.

 

I am not a technical person but I fail to see how a driver can damage the clutch when driving in automatic mode?

However, before I returned the car I had it taken for a test run by our local Toyota garage and they confirmed that there is a problem with the transmission but were unable to specify exactly where without dismantling the transmission.

 

The car has no problem going up hills so I am doubtful about the clutch being faulty. 

I have now booked the car in for a full diagnostic check with the Toyota garage that is very near the car dealers location as otherwise we were in a stalemate situation with the dealer doing nothing.

 

This issue has prompted me to do some research and I have since discovered that there have been problems with this Toyota semi-automatic gearbox and the symptoms we are experiencing are exactly as those described on various Internet forums. Hence my increasing cynicism that the dealer is using the clutch argument so as to wash his hands of it, as the fault could be down to several reasons, some very expensive to fix!

 

I can see this having to go to the Small Claims Court.

In over 50 years of motoring in many different, mainly secondhand cars, I have never been in such a situation before so this is all new and very stressful (and time consuming/expensive) for me.

 

Do you think we have a reasonable chance of getting our money back this way?

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the dealer is established and has assets and will not suddenly disappear overnight then you will get your money back.

If you haven't done so already, you should make sure that the dealer has notice in writing that you are asserting your rights under the consumer rights act and because the defect has occurred within 30 days you want a refund plus any ancillary losses – which could include the cost of returning the car.

I have to say that the consumer rights act right to reject the vehicle is all very well we are finding a lot of difficulty actually managing to enforce this right especially with second-hand car dealers.

I'm afraid that you are another second hand vehicle purchaser who for some reason rather has fallen into exactly the same difficulty – by a car for a fairly cheap price and you bite so far away from you that that itself is a cause of problem. I find it difficult to imagine that there wasn't another suitable vehicle much closer that 195 miles away. However I realise that saying that doesn't help you – but maybe it should be a warning to others who might read this thread.

I wouldn't mince around. Don't get into any protracted conversations about getting it tested or discussing whether or not you damage the clutch. If you are prepared to take action then send the letter of claim and give 14 days. On day 15 issue the claim in the County Court. We will help you. If you are prepared to do this then don't make the threat. Don't bluff.

If this is what you are prepared to then make sure the letter of claim goes off on Monday first class. Spend the next 14 days registering on to the free County Court's money claim online website and start preparing your case. The particulars of claim will be very short and you should post them here so that we can check them before you click them off on day 15.

Don't expect this to be in instant solution. Assuming that the dealer doesn't cave in you will probably be looking at six months before the matter comes to hearing and you get a judgement in your favour. If you are lucky then maybe once the dealer receives the papers they will cave in and pay you out.

What is the name of the dealer?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankfodder – thank you for your rapid reply.

Yes, I agree with you, it was against my better judgement that we travelled such a long way to get that car.

However in our defence we have been scouring lots of websites for many weeks for a decent 7 seater automatic (petrol).

Believe it or not they are pretty scarce!

 

We are controlled by the price our friend can afford to pay (approx £4000 – repayments of £100 p.m.), hence this usually dictates the kind of car we could get – usually a very high mileage diesel which we did not want. When the Verso came up it seemed like a good opportunity.

 

Re: Consumer Protection Act: yes, I wrote to the dealer on the 28th March to tell them that I was rejecting the car in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and that I wanted a refund. I didn’t mention anything about additional expenses because I didn’t know I could include these. By the time this business is over, these will be considerable I think.

 

Re: your comment

“I wouldn't mince around. Don't get into any protracted conversations about getting it tested or discussing whether or not you damage the clutch”.

 

Do you advise then that I should cancel the diagnostic test at the Toyota garage?

I just felt we needed some independent technical expertise as we are not car mechanics!

Maybe this could go ahead in parallel?

I am paying for it out of my own money anyway as there is no chance that the dealer will do this.

 

Re: Letter of Claim. Is there a template for this?

I followed your link but all I can see is a POC.

Thanks.

 

Jeff

 

P.S. I meant to ask, would the fact that we didn't research the car before we bought it affect our claim?

Four of us went to see the car before we bought it and all agreed it seemed to be in really good condition so we had no reason to suspect any problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that you haven't told us the name of the dealer. Are you trying to protect them?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am not.

Is it wise/relevant to put these details on a public forum at this stage?

 

The questions I have raised are "generic" and would apply to any second hand car dealer I'd have thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is relevant because if the dealer realises that he is being talked about openly on social media then it will help to put pressure. It is relevant because if others who are thinking of doing business with the same company see that there is a story to know about then that may protect them. No, it doesn't apply to any second-hand car dealer but unfortunately it certainly applies to more than one would like to imagine.

Once again it is relevant because if second-hand car dealers realise that by failing to respect the consumer rights of their customers, that they may be referred to on social media, then they may prefer to take a more customer-facing approach in future.

All of those reasons, at least.

 

By not mentioning the car dealer by name, you are effectively protecting him and also you are effectively removing protection from others who might spend their money in similar circumstances and he might think twice or whom might ask better questions if they were forewarned.

Don't you wish you had been forewarned?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just came across this thread on the forum:

 

Now I am totally confused!!

Back to the Consumer Standards helpline in the morning methinks

- can't afford to get this wrong.

 

Is it possible, in my case, that the dealer genuinely did not discover any transmission fault with my car simply because it's an intermittent thing and a short test run (like the one I did pre-purchase) does not show up the problem?

 

This still doesn't affect my rights under the CRA

but just wondering if this could be a legitimate defence for him?

 

I am loath to reveal the dealer at this stage until I get a definitive answer from either the Toyota garage and/or an independent motor engineer. Suppose the verdict is that (somehow!!!!)  we have indeed damaged the transmission in less than 6 hours of driving, and I have been slagging off the dealer in the interim?

 

I am convinced that we have not done any damage of course but it's only fair that we keep an open mind surely, even if the dealer is not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have to be aware that cag is a forum, and people are here from many walks of life

 

that life provided them with their income, or did until CRA came in and tightened down on the ole game may car dealers played for more than 40years

 

TINY..Tough Its Now Yours!

 

and are trying everything they can to minimise its impact by interpreting things as they feel fit

picking out single lines of the CRA here and there that 'supposedly' backs up their 'theories' when if you read the whole section that one liner came from...it says nothing of the sort..

 

you don't have to prove anything, and pers id not go running to 'helplines' 

CRA is very clear and I cant see you having any issue here.


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, hope you're right! I wouldn't say that the Consumer helpline is any old "helpline" though - they are the definitive mouthpiece of Trading Standards surely,  but aimed at Joe Public like me rather than companies or corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tnink it’s important you get balanced advice.

If you wish to reject within 30 days the ownership falls into you as the consumer to prove the fault was present at the point of sale, pre-existing and not disclosed to you.

 

It isn’t as simple or one sided as you have been advised.

The CRA is designed to protect consumers and retailers equally.

If you go to court with the intent to reject you will need to produce a report confirming this. 

 

After 30 days, the ownership is reversed and the dealer will have to prove the fault was not present. 

 

You also need to consider any fault related to the age, or mileage, serviceable,  or related to wear n tear is specifically excluded. 

 

You are still entitled to one repair within 6 months but as long as it is a genuine claim. 

 

Fyi

 

http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/read-news/865#sthash.omv9rATy.E5OXlfgs.dpbs

 

FYI again.

http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/read-news/1312#sthash.NvaTZTVG.dpbs

 

 

 

For the reasons above, I don’t agree with your interpretation and I think it is only fair the OP sees what retail motor dealers believe and keep paying their very heavy subscriptions too.

 

Its important he knows what he’s up against so he can make his owner informed decisions. 

 

I chose to believe the UK’s leading Motoring Legal experts and I am entitled to give my balanced help / advice to the OP. 

 

OP, you are up against the following. 

 

30 Day Right To Reject Reminder

We have had a few calls of late from dealers who are of the belief that a refund has to be given in the first 30 days if there is a fault. 

This is not necessarily the case. 

Firstly, if the customer is asking for a refund under the 30 Day Right To Reject,  the onus is on the customer to prove there is a fault and they need to prove that:
 
1.    The fault is worthy of a refund. On a used car this is only likely to be the case if there was a major fault such as the  turbo failing or the gearbox ceasing. Minor faults do not entitle the customer to a refund. 
 
2.    The fault was present at the point of sale. So, even if the turbo failed at Day 29, this doesn’t automatically mean the customer is entitled to a refund unless they can prove it was failing at the point they took delivery. 

These are relatively high hurdles for the consumer, and rightly so given the benefits of this 30 Day Rule. If you have any doubts as to whether you have to refund or offer a repair, members can call the Lawgistics Legal helpline to discuss the specific facts of your case and we will help you minimise any potential loss.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well they would say that wouldn't they.

bit like ambulance chasers giving advice to a potential customer so they can get fees out of the other party even if they lose.

 

post 8 explains all..


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to give advice, make it balanced.

Explain both sides of the coin.

Don’t just cherry pick the bits you want to here and then ignore the actual true facts.

 

The CRA is designed to be fair to both parties.

The OP needs to understand the above so he can make  fully informed, educated decision.

Not be mislead by a warped misleading interpretation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, buyer-beware said:

I tnink it’s important you get balanced advice. If you wish to reject with 30 days the ownership falls into you as the consumer to prove the fault was present at the point of sale, pre-existing and not disclosed to you. It isn’t as simple or one sided as you have been advised. The CRA is designed to protect consumers and retailers equally. If you go to court with the intent to reject you will need to produce a report confirming this. 

 

After 30 days, the ownership is reversed and the dealer will have to prove the fault was not present. 

 

You also need to consider any fault related to the age, or mileage, serviceable,  or related to wear n tear is specifically excluded. 

 

You are still entitled to one repair within 6 months but as long as it is a genuine claim. 

 

Fyi

 

http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/read-news/865#sthash.omv9rATy.E5OXlfgs.dpbs

 

Would you be kind enough to explain what you mean by ownership falling and ownership being reversed?

Also would you mind giving the authority the assertion you have made which I have picked out in purple


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I suggest you take that up with the Lawgistics. The UK’s leading Motoring Law Firm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't think you may. You decided to tell people about some aspect of the law and I think that we need to understand what you mean. For instance, what on earth do you mean by reversing ownership? Are you suggesting then that they sell the car or they transfer the title to the dealer or to some other person?

I think it's reasonable for you to explain what you mean – otherwise it's really not worth you giving any information here if it doesn't make sense


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interest of the OP I think it’s really important you give balanced advice. Are you calling Lawgistics liars and misleading? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I am saying that I don't think you understand what you're posting here. I think that if you're going to attempt to give authoritative advice then at the very least people should have confidence that you understand what you're saying – even if they don't understand what you're saying.

I'm afraid I have both problems. I don't understand what you're saying and I don't believe you do either


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES!! they are liars!

 

there is nothing in the CRA that stipulates the owner HAS to prove the fault was there upon buying the item if they exercise their short term right to reject within 30days..

 

Lawgistics are talking utter tosh!!

 

TINY does not apply anymore.

 

one of the reasons CRA was brought in was to specifically stop dodgy motor traders pulling these stunts.

 

the item has failed within 30 days

- unfit for purpose,

it matters not if/if it was not there at the time of sale.

 

now if the fault renders the retailer likely to refund is another matter

elsewhere faulty windscreen wipers or a bulb out are not sufficient reason.

however no oil in the car IS..it proved fatal.

 

as for this reverse ownership.

if you mean outside of 30days but within 6mts the dealer has to prove it wasn't there..

..sort of makes a mockery of the before 30days the buyer has too doesn't it really...

 

sorry but the CRA is quite clear but people want to manipulate things to their own advantage and find get out clauses in the CRA when there are none.

 

keep paying their very heavy subscriptions too. ..

 

to hear what they want to hear surely?

do they ever go against what the member wants to hear?

thus running the 'i pay you lots of money to get me out of what I believe is not my responsibility'?

just wondering?


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat. For the reasons above, I don’t agree with your interpretation and I think it is only fair the OP sees what he’s potentially up against. He can then make an informed decision. 

 

I repeat, I chose to believe the UK’s leading Motoring Legal experts and I am entitled to give my balanced help / advice to the OP. Even if you don’t want hear it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, buyer-beware said:

OP, you are up against the following. 

 

30 Day Right To Reject Reminder

We have had a few calls of late from dealers who are of the belief that a refund has to be given in the first 30 days if there is a fault. 

This is not necessarily the case. 

Firstly, if the customer is asking for a refund under the 30 Day Right To Reject,  the onus is on the customer to prove there is a fault and they need to prove that:
 
1.    The fault is worthy of a refund. On a used car this is only likely to be the case if there was a major fault such as the  turbo failing or the gearbox ceasing. Minor faults do not entitle the customer to a refund. 
 
2.    The fault was present at the point of sale. So, even if the turbo failed at Day 29, this doesn’t automatically mean the customer is entitled to a refund unless they can prove it was failing at the point they took delivery. 

These are relatively high hurdles for the consumer, and rightly so given the benefits of this 30 Day Rule. If you have any doubts as to whether you have to refund or offer a repair, members can call the Lawgistics Legal helpline to discuss the specific facts of your case and we will help you minimise any potential loss.  

 

13 minutes ago, buyer-beware said:

I repeat. For the reasons above, I don’t agree with your interpretation and I think it is only fair the OP sees what he’s potentially up against. He can then make an informed decision. 

 

I repeat, I chose to believe the UK’s leading Motoring Legal experts and I am entitled to give my balanced help / advice to the OP. Even if you don’t want hear it. 

I'm sorry but this is mainly wrong.

I quite agree that people are entitled to hear a balanced view – but if you are simply repeating your interpretation of somebody else's view then it is unhelpful.

If you would like to turn to the source – the statute and come back here and explain to everyone how the statute supports your position then we would like to see it. Otherwise, I'm afraid that I take the view that what you say is completely misleading.

What you are saying is wrong in a number of respects – but in particular I will say that the short-term right to reject does not depend on the seriousness of the defect. The seriousness of the defect was an issue under the old pre-2015 law. In that case, it was a matter of common law that a defect which undermine the purpose of the contract did indeed terminate the contract. A defect which did not undermine the contract was always considered to be "a breach of warranty" and could be remedied by a repair and/or damages.

The Consumer Rights Act has change that part quite radically. If this is really what the motor trade are saying then please post a link to that so we can have a look at it and also the date at which it was posted.

I can scarcely imagine that any reputable organisation would still trot out such out of date information.

Please post a link to the source of your information – but also if you want to give advice authoritatively here then please will you link to the source.

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well I can then only repeat what I said before BB

they will say that else there'd be a mass exodus of 'paid members' not hearing what they want to hear.

 

as far as I can see there is no requirement under an 'unfit for purpose' claim made under the '30days short term right to reject' option of the CRA for the buyer to prove it was present at the time of buying, they are claiming 'its fatally failed within 30 days' not specifically 'xyz has failed'. 

 

cant see the point of the introduction of the 30 days under CRA if it was not needed to be introduced. 

the previous SOGA etc obv didn't have such protection thus it was needed.

 

now as you and i have said, if the reason doesn't hold water to be fatal 'enough' is another matter. 

 

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat again, even if you don’t like it. It is a thoroughly valid and worthy point to make to the OP......

 

I quote Andyorch

 

“Please can we keep this civil....the OP is free to take whoevers advice he feels is correct and unbiased.

 

Andy”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gentlemen - I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest here!

 

Can I say that the advice I got from the Consumer helpline concours with that of Buyer Beware i.e. in the first 30 days the onus of proof is on me. I'm on to it, make no mistake!

 

The car goes to the Toyota garage on Tuesday for their assessment and will also be examined by an independent automomotive engineer who is registered with the IAEA.

 

If it has to go to court so be it.

If I win then all the costs I have incurred will be claimed back.

 

 I should have added that I am aware of the risks but the independent expert is confident that we have a case.

 

The main fault (gearbox automatically shifts into neutral and no further selection of a gear is possible unless engine stopped and restarted)

 

appeared after a total of about only 6 hours of driving.

 

What is the greater probability -  extremely unlucky or there was an existing intermittent fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Verso owner, you do realize that ringing the Consumer Helpline is a bit of a lottery? The 'advisers' are well meaning volunteers who may or may not have any real understanding of the law about which they are giving advice!

 

You need to make an appointment with them to have a chance of getting advice from a solicitor who again may or may not have an expertise with the CRA 2015

 

There have been many instances on this forum when Citizens Advice (who run Consumer helpline) got things wrong in law - private parking springs to mind.

 

Lawgistics may claim to be the UK's No1 motoring lawyers but as that claim is directed at the motor trade who purchase a subscription from them, as dx (and before him Christine Keeler) said 'well they would, wouldn't they'.


My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Verso owner

I am glad you are seeing sense.

If the report shows conclusively the fault was present at the point of sale then the retailer hasn’t a leg to stand on. 

 

I would take a punt that the fault was there and that’s why it’s previous owner got rid.

The dealer might of checked the car thoroughly and did his job correctly but never knew of the problem..... who knows. 

 

Can I ask why you immediately jumped to reject without asking the dealer to repair?  

It sounds like a lovely car ?

A rejection should always be the last resort. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...