Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • get the FOS done and see. i have a feeling you might not need to do the latter.    
    • Noted, thanks re-draft it is then 🙄    If it does go to FOS and its upheld can I also go for the throat and apply to set aside the suspended judgement (consent order) based  CCA  sections 86E not providing default sum notices 86(5) not entitled to enforce agreement  87(1) and 88(2) leading to unlawful repudiation of the credit agreement. Just an idea. 
    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

I'm new to this group and looking for some advice. 

 

I bought a second hand car last August. By 10th September 2019 the garage repairing the car told me the car was not road worthy. 

Prior to purchase the car seller was good at communication whether by email or phone. 

 

Once we had paid the full price £1050 by bank transfer (I know stupid!). He didn't really respond to my queries with the car  though they were not so major issues like car  CD player. 

 

The car passed it's MOT on 15th August 2019 the day we took the car home. Stupidly I did not check the MOT history because just 1 week prior to this on 8th August the car failed it's MOT on various faults two needed repairs immediately. One being the parking brake efficiency which proved to be a problem for me once I took possession of the car.

 

When the EML came on 26th August I went to my local garage to repair. The car dealer told me that cars valued under £2000 did not come with warranty. Further the car dealer base in Ruislip and I am in Slough,  he had no on site garage facilities so like me would have had to take car to another place to repair. 

 

The car's faults continued after the EML the handbrake light then started to flash too. Back to my local garage for repairs. At this point we looked into MOT history and discovered the failed MOT of 8th August. Though the 15th August the car passed it's MOT I have doubts over the validity of this MOT and have separately raised this with DVSA.

 

I then wrote yo car seller seeking right to reject as within 30 days of purchase. No response. 2nd letter sent again no response,  eventually I issued a claim form. He filed a defense saying the costs to repair the car were extortionate. I even went to VW Garage and they provided me a higher quote!. 

We are now going to court I have filed my bundles but have not received anything from Defendant. He has now passed the deadline to comply. 

 

I am seeking a full refund of car and repairs under Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

I accept I did not go to Defendant to repair the car but when I saw the failed MOT it broke my trust in him.

 

I wanted to know what others think of my chances ? This has been very stressful for me.

 

Thank you !

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the name of the dealer.

Please will you post the claim form and also the defence up here in scanned PDF format. Not an image please. Scanned PDF

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is called DF Autos 

I don't have scanning facilities can only upload image of claim and defence form 

 

Will that work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uploads unapproved...please redact all documents before posting.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read through the claim.

The defence is in a document format – and I presume that you have simply typed it out. However it is a block of text and it is too difficult to read properly.

Please will you post the defence again but this time properly spaced and punctuated in a way that you would like to see if it was presented to you.

I have to say that your claim form has run to 9 pages – and pretty well all of it unnecessary.

The one most important element which seems to be missing – is that you have asserted your right to reject the vehicle. This is almost all you need to plead in the claim form.

You say that you have asserted your right to reject. Please will you post a scanned copy of that. If you don't have access to a scanner then for £49 you can get an excellent run from PC World which will last you for years. We give very good help and advice and support here free of charge – but I think it's reasonable for people to have at least the minimum equipment needed to use this kind of setting.

A claim form is simply used to state your course of action – and not to provide all the evidence and advance information about your case.

Your claim should simply have been

Quote

The claimant bought a vehicle registration XXX from the defendant car dealer. It developed a significant fault within the first 30 days and the claimant asserted its right to reject the vehicle and to insist on a refund as per the Consumer Rights Act. The defendant has refused to refund the purchase price.
The claimant claims £XXX plus interest plus XXX ancillary losses plus interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts act 1984. The defendant is fully aware of the defects and costs and so forth as he has been informed of everything in correspondence.


Please will you post the letter of rejection.

And yes, it wasn't a good idea to pay by bank transfer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, that will suffice as a letter of rejection – although I don't understand why you have to write pages and pages of everything instead of simply making the point that you need to make.

The same with your claim form.

It's a great shame that you haven't actually stated your your main cause of action on your claim form which is that you asserted your statutory right to reject and that the dealer breach their statutory duty by not accepting the rejection and refusing to refund.

This is a glaring omission and at some point you have to remedy it.

If you haven't actually claimed that then you haven't given the dealer an opportunity to defend on that particular point – and of course by not bringing it up now, in principle you are not asking the court to address that point.

You should amend the claim.

Once you sue on the basis that you have asserted your right to reject and that the dealer refuses to comply, then you have pretty well 100% chance of winning. However, you are not exploiting this because you have not raised this in your particulars of claim.

Strictly speaking you should amend the claim and then the dealer should have a further right to put in a defence.

Of course I may have missed it in your nine page particulars of claim so please will you confirm that you did not raise the issue of rejection in your claim form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What stage is your claim at now ?  You submitted it in Oct 19 ...has it been allocated yet ?


Andy

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I should point out that you will win anyway – but you are making it much more complicated than it needs to be. If you simply raise the question of your statutory rights and his breach of obligation then the judge will give you a judgement in your favour within five minutes.

Because you have raised pretty well every other issue bar that, the judge will have to consider the entire aspect of the defects and whether they do amount to a substantial breach of contract and whether they could have been repairable et cetera et cetera et cetera.

Although you will eventually win, it means that the judge may have a complicated issue to decide and of course it will simply prolong the agony.

Simply raising the fact that the dealer refused to comply with your assertion of your right to reject will bring the entire case shuddering to a halt in your favour and the judge doesn't need to listen to any other arguments. He simply needs to see your letter of rejection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean your particulars of claim? – In that case, I'm sorry but I missed it.

Please could you indicate which paragraph is at?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no not your fault

 

I haven't uploaded the WS, though that is a long document too (yikes !)

 

I'll see if I can do that 

 

Thank you for all the advice I do appreciate it 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so it's not in the defence. So we have the same problem. Please don't upload your witness statement – I don't think we could stand it.

My site team colleague @Andyorch has suggested that rather than go through the trouble and cost of amending your claim, that you should simply point out the letter of rejection in your witness statement.

However, I think you could spare the judge the agony by not giving him/her some extended witness statement – but simply a short – no more than half an A4 side pointing out that you did supply a letter of rejection within the first 30 days and that the defendant has refused.
Attached to that – and also in your bundle, you can include a copy of the letter of rejection – and evidence showing that the defendant refused to comply.
The defendant can then produce a witness statement in response – specifically addressing the issue of the letter of rejection.

Because you are litigant in person, you have a certain licence – and so you will get away with it.

It would probably be a good idea – and courteous to produce the witness statement in advance and send a copy of it to the defendant so that the defendant has lots of time to digest what is happening and to compose their response – if they want.

I strongly suggest that you post up your proposed witness statement here first.

So for the moment, let it go. Please stop practising expressing yourself more effectively and try to identify the point that you are making and stick to that.

You are simply complicating the situation to the point where you are never what else are losing sight of the most important issues – and of course all this will do will be to cause you problems and risk your legal position.

Now that you have found this site – with future problems come here first.

 

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...