Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am helping my niece on an overdraft debit originally with the Bank of Scotland that was bought by Intrum.  I would appreciate any help and advice. . . here is the story so far: The bank account was in my niece’s name that had an overdraft facility. My niece and her partner, at that time, run into some financial hardship caused her to default in account, March 2017. They agreed with bank to settle the outstanding some but removing the excessive charges. My niece’s partner claimed that he paid the agreed sum and the couple never heard any more from the bank on the issue until started to their claim. Unfortunately all the records of the settlement is with my noises x-partner. So we have not much to go on other than retrieve all the bank records on the account. Intrum bought the debit on 28/11/2018. Intrum filed to recover the debit with the Simple Procedure court in Glasgow in April 2020. I have send SAR letter to the Bank of Scotland but had no response from them yet, perhaps because of the current Pandemic situation. The court directed me to call the original loan holder to the Case Management discussion, by filling in some legal form, to answer to present their legitimacy of the debit.  I would be grateful if anyone could have help with your views on the best way to proceed.
    • How do I know what to reply though and how to get it right.  I may have had 12 months to sort it but I simply have not been able to afford to keep it up. In December I had high hopes but circumstances completely out of my control at that time meant rightly or wrongly my bank account was not on my mind. Bear in mind I have taken out 2000 and paid back 4700 or thereabouts. So it certainly isn’t the case that I never ever paid them or tried to run away.  I have made substantial payments throughout these couple of years. 
    • get some CCA request s running tomorrow. without enforceable paperwork no-one is going near a courtroom door. wait and see what toilet paper each one returns with. they have 12+2 days else one of your options is too cease payment until they do.    
    • Hi  I wonder if anyone can assist. We purchased a proform treadmill from Sweatband.com approximately 3 months ago. It is a fairly large treadmill and we purchased with the intention of putting into our garage which has electrical wiring and my partner has a turbo trainer already in there (has been for years). Only when the treadmill got delivered did it the warranty documents advise against keeping it in the garage. No where on the website for Sweatband or the manufacturer's website does it recommend the treadmill is not kept in the garage. The sweatband website has a treadmill buyer's guide where it actually comments that people like to put treadmills in the garage but consider the head height. So it is only after you have purchased and taken delivery of the treadmill are you advised not to keep it in the garage.    We took delivery and set it up on a proper gym mat. We make sure to turn it off when not in use and to cover the treadmill when not in use. It has been working fine. I used on Friday night and then on Saturday morning when I went to switch on the electrics have stopped.    Sweatband are now redirecting us to the manufacturer who are saying we have the item in an unsuitable environment and this will void our warranty.  The item is so big we cannot physically lift it out of the garage and we do not have a room in the house big enough to store it.    Has anyone had any similar problems with treadmills in the garage and it affecting the warranty? We feel we have been mis-sold a product as it is only after you have taken delivery are you told you cannot store in the garage despite the seller's guide making reference to where to store your treadmill and making reference to the garage but failing to warn it is against advice to store it there. We would have never bought the treadmill if we knew it was unsuitable for the garage.    Also we made the transaction via paypal but using our credit card. Do we have any protection with our credit card or paypal? The cost was £1,500 so we do feel it should last longer than 3 months.   Any help or advice would be much appreciated.   Thanks  EM0149 
    • they weren't enforcement officer, they were a powerless DCA.   the point of only getting 2 days to raise £1500 (not £1800 the £300 repo fee is an unlawful penalty) is one we shall use. BUT!!!....... you can't call the kettle back , you've had more then 12mts to sort this out, you haven't, so the other points are pretty much irrelevant, it works both ways .   your reply has got to be very very carefully worded in most certainly wont be tonight nor tomorrow you should answer poss by friday, you rush back with a poor reply you play right into their games. don't!!  
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Recommended Posts

I have recently bought a car that had a tampered Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) making the car unroadworthy.

The seller is a private seller but I want to raise to the court that he has been selling multiple cars as a clear source of income. Making him a trade dealer.

 

I have recently gained his home and business address making small claims court an option.

I have messaged him giving him a chance to fully repair the car or to restore and repair it to make it legally road worthy.

 

I have proof of his trade dealings from facebook which also is connected to his business partners who have been advertising the cars as well.

I understand I will have less rights if the judge deems him not to be a trade dealer however him selling me an illegal car is a criminal offence meaning I have the right to end the contract agreed on facebook and am entitled to a full refund.

 

Under the selling of goods act section 13, it states that the car must match description.

On Facebook it stated 'Everything works perfectly' which in fact it does not.

 

He said the car had two previous owner and that the MOT was completed on the 09/11/20 when it fact it was done on the 10th.

Given all these legs to stand on is a small courts claim feasible? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum – and I'm sure we can help you.

However, you have posted your story in a solid block of text and it makes it very difficult for people to read and it discourages them from helping you.

Please will you repost your story – spaced and punctuated please so that it is easier for everyone to deal with.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

post spaced

thread moved to vehicle retailers forum.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

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

Yes, a small claim is absolutely feasible.

You need to make sure that you've got evidence of the tampering and also so that a judge can understand it, I think you need to get a little bit of very simple documentation about what this is and how the tampering works and what it achieves.

Secondly, you need to accumulate a good file of evidence showing this person's trading activities and the fact that they are posing as a private seller when in fact they are in business.

In terms of any contract, if the car is unroadworthy then it is in breach of contract.

You don't give us any information about what the car is, when you bought it, or how much you paid. Please could you give us the information.

Also, who are you dealing with? Don't be shy about putting this up on the forum. There is no disadvantage to you.

Finally, you're talking about the wrong act of Parliament. The sale of goods act has been superseded by the consumer rights act 2015

Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, although on the basis of what you say, if you bring a claim against them then your chances of success are much better than 95% – the problem will be, as ever, the problem of enforcement.

If this person all these people are serious about ripping people off and avoiding their consumer obligations, then you can be sure that they will be quite good at avoiding the enforcement of judgements. This needs to be very seriously thought about before you start investing money on bringing a claim which will be successful but won't bring you any return

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car is a Vauxhall Astra 2011 1.3 Diesel. I bought it for £1285. I’m going to get an AA check in the car to evaluate it’s damage with a report.
 

This person has a business address and a home address which I have both found.

 

Attached to the business address is a name which he is friends with on Facebook who is advertising the same cars and the same goes for his wife too.

 

I have the home address’ of all names attached to the business so I’m not sure running is an option for him or his associates. 

 

I won’t be releasing his name but I can say he is based in Newham, East London.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that you have told us when you bought the car. However, you have referred to a conversation in which they apparently told you that the MOT had been carried out on 11 November so that suggests to me that you bought it after that date.

Although it seems as if you are dealing with quite a dodgy crowd, you may as well go through the paces of asserting your proper rights. Because you have discovered this issue within the first 30 days – you can add to the strength of your position by sending them a letter asserting a right to reject the vehicle under the consumer rights act.

If a car manifests a defect within the first 30 days then you are entitled to reject it out of hand with no chance of repair but you must assert your right in writing.

Send them a letter immediately – recorded delivery – informing them that you are rejecting the vehicle and telling them on what grounds and say that you are asserting your rights under the consumer rights act.

It won't make a whole lot of difference, but later on if you find yourself having to take court action, then it will all help.

Please let us know when you have had the AA check.

Meanwhile, I suggest that you contact me at our admin email address and let me know the identity of the garage and any other identity clues that you have unearthed. It may enable us to give you additional help

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I think you will find that the AA/RAC vehicle reports clearly state on them 'not to be used as a legal defence' or something similar.

 

There are forensic engineers who specifically examine vehicles for the purpose you describe and produce a report that is suitable for court use, this can be prohibitable regarding cost. TBH courts/judges seem ok with reports/inspections carried out by most well established garages and if they are a VOSA approved MOT station then that helps.

 

Obviously if your Uncle Baz produces something scrawled on the back of an old ECP invoice that won't help. A typed, dated and signed report on letter headed paper will suffice.

Edited by phil40000
correction
Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what disclaimers the reports have on them. They are all useful

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you are suggesting that it is prudent to submit a document, that could later be used in a legal/court case, which clearly states that it is non admissible in such circumstances.

 

Surely that is akin to buying a life jacket which clearly states that it is not designed for water survival!

 

can I ask if you have been present in a small claims court when a case has been brought against a motor trader?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect it could be argued that selling a life jacket which is not designed for water survival could fail any reasonable test for mis-selling and should aptly have the name of the item changed to something more suitable.

 

In any case I propose the best way to obtain an independent report if you are in any doubt as to the reports you are already in receipt of is to take the vehicle to a reputable garage and request a quote for the work including details as to why the work needs to be carried out.

 

If a garage is apprehensive to do this then offer to write the report and request that they sign it, confirming its validity.

 

A garage shouldn't take issue with this as they would no doubt hope to win your business as a result of their helpfulness.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

got it yet?

 

dx

 

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

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...