Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just another example of how Enforcement helps not to clear debt by increasing it.
    • Firstly, you don't need to worry about the so-called "six-month rule". The consumer rights act simply complements the existing law contract. It adds to it, it clarifies it – but it doesn't take anything away from it. Not only that, even within the consumer rights act, the most important provision is that the goods you buy are of satisfactory quality and that they conform to their description. If you have bought a vehicle expecting it to be low mileage – only 17,000 and in fact the mileage turns out to be double – 34,000, then I would say that it is not of satisfactory quality. Also, it doesn't conform to its description. It is impossible that this vehicle could be repaired in order to return it to its expected satisfactory condition because you can't undo the mileage don't wear and tear. Furthermore it doesn't conform to its description and nobody will be able to undo that either. On that basis it seems to me that this is what is known as a fundamental breach of contract – which is a breach so serious that it essentially undermines the purpose of the contract – and it amounts to a termination by the seller and it is up to you the innocent party to accept the termination and to consider that the contract is at an end. This then gives you the right to recover all of the losses which you have reasonably incurred as a result of the seller's breach of contract. You have bought this vehicle using finance – and I'm assuming that it is alone and under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, the finance company are fully liable to you in exactly the same way that the supplier is liable. In other words, their financial liability to you are mirror images of each other. You say that you are in "the process" of rejecting the car. I don't understand what process there is. You simply write to the supplier – copy it to the finance company – and tell them that the contract is at an end because they have breached it in a very serious way and you want to know what arrangements are being made for returning the car. I think that you should also point out that in the interim period you will be without a vehicle and that it would be in their interests to provide you with a loan vehicle until such time as you can source a replacement. Frankly, if you trust the supplier – and if the supplier behaves in a responsible way, this may be the time to negotiate a new vehicle from the supplier – and no doubt this time they will be far more careful about what they supply you. I think it will be worth pointing out to the supplier that if he will not provide you with a reasonable loan vehicle that you will incur costs in respect of a hire vehicle or some other arrangement and that you will look to them to reimburse you all of these expenses. Once again, you should send a copy of this to the finance company. Separately you should write directly to the finance company and put them on notice as well that the finance agreement is at an end because of the fundamental breach of their client. Because they are a finance company, don't expect them to be especially cooperative so I would tell them immediately that if there is any hint of a lack of cooperation that you will begin an immediate complaint to the FOS – but you may decide to proceed direct to a county court if you feel you have to. Have you contacted anybody about this? We could all be jumping the gun because maybe you haven't even brought it to the attention of the dealer and you don't know what the dealer's attitude is. In all letters, make sure that you copy the letters to the garage to the finance company and those to the finance company copy to the garage – so everybody knows the extent of the trouble you are making about this. Finally, why haven't you told us the name of the garage? Are you trying to protect them? What is the name of the finance company? Are you trying to protect them?
    • I have also read a few threads on CAG and also MSE and there is one conflic of opnions which does worry me a little which is the ignore or appeal...   Ignore until they get to a stage where I have to respond or appeal and not let any claim forms come throug the post and cause unnecesarry stress as my wife is the RK of the car.   I trust your judgement on here as your advice has always been clear and confident but i thoguht I would still ask at what point is ignoring these both, going to do us harm with a CCJ or something?   Thanks again   Gee
  • Our picks

eshroom

NSL/Marston lifted/towed my van re;DVLA no tax fine but now found they damaged

Recommended Posts

The summary is that I collected my van after it was towed, drove it 20 metres and saw a panel come loose, I went inside to report it and immediately emailed them, they have since refused the claim as I had already collected the vehicle.

 

The story:

 

- Van towed

- Van collected, signed out 12:00

- Van appeared visually to have no new damage, was not allowed to drive it until paperwork signed

- Upon driving it a plastic exterior panel came loose (this appears to be from when it was craned onto of truck)

- I stopped the vehicle 12:03 and walked into their office to report damage

- I emailed photos to head office 12:08

- NSL initially claimed they examined photos and damage was pre-existing

- I requested CCTV footage of my visit under Data Protection Act. I provided them a copy of my ID, photo, description of clothing as well as letting them know I was the only member of public/customer on-site for the duration of my visit

- CCTV footage denied on basis I "was not recognisable" after they reviewed footage

- Initially refused to provide any photos of vehicle

- Finally produced 0.3 megapixel images, much too low resolution to see anything, but certainly confirming their claim the damage was pre-existing is false

- Refuse to provide original full resolution images despite multiple requests

- Latest excuse I was gone 15 minutes and could have caused the damage during this time. Clearly a false assertion given I emailed them within 8 minutes and was in their office within 3 minutes of leaving.

- I feel by refusing to provide CCTV footage and full resolution photos they are obstructing my ability to prove they caused the damage

 

The damaged panel tore off at 30mph while trying to go to have it looked at, luckily no other vehicle was damaged, in hindsight I should have driven with the panel being damaged. But this proves the damage is very unlikely to have been pre-existing as the van couldn't be driven.

 

So I intend to pursue through the small claims court. My questions are:

 

- I can't afford to fix the van right now and as it is cosmetic, I can still use it without fixing the panel. Can I get a quote from Renault and claim on MCOL for the value of the repair?

- Although I was gone only 3 minutes and drove 50 metres from NSL yard directly to NSL office, I did still take the vehicle before reporting the damage, this was due to the panel being pushed into place (but not secured) and therefore not visible until the vehicle was moved. Will this work against me when making a claim?

- Does their repeated lying (first claiming it was pre-existing, then falsely claiming I was gone 15 minutes and could have caused the damage then) work against them?

- Does withholding CCTV where I was the only non-high vis person on-site on the basis I was not "identifiable" work against them (clearly I was identifiable, I was the guy without high vis on)

- Does failure to produce any original images, just very compressed images of the van before and after towing, work against them?

 

How strong a case do people think I may have?

 

I have exhausted their complaints process.

 

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who are nsl?

what are they doing lifting your vehicle in the 1st place?

 

dx


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NSL are contracted by the DVLA to tow vehicles that have unpaid tax. My van was sitting a while and I was travelling, and I forgot to tax it.

 

I subsequently taxed it, paid my DVLA fine, held my hands up and took responsibility. But am now trying to get NSL to pay for the damage they caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the DVLA's responsibility/involvement is within this

as NSL were operating for their client the DVLA


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My fine was paid directly to the DVLA, my towing and storage fee was paid directly to NSL, I therefore assume that any implied contract regarding the wellbeing of the vehicle would be with NSL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a client is equally responsible for the actions of their dogs.

 

 


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from maybe going after DVLA instead/as well, does anyone have any insight on any of the points I raised? Especially this one:

 

- I can't afford to fix the van right now and as it is cosmetic, I can still use it without fixing the panel. Can I get a quote from Renault and claim on MCOL for the value of the repair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before considering a claim, you would need to obtain a quote for any damage. 

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...