Avon Car Sales - Dubious tactics not to refund for fault in car - court claim issued

[Sc0ut]

Thanks but Yes you are a bit short. I know you're trying to help but you misunderstand & your tone could be better.  I have read it and its not that clear.  

To be clear, I put in what you recommended and it was too much.   I attach it again here for your review but I have already formatted it as a document but its the same.  I look forward to your advice ... 

 

PS. Andy, thanks for your reply.  Very clear & helpful.  Unlike some of the MCOL Guidelines.

 

Accompanying Précised version for online particulars:

The claimant bought a car registration XXX from the defendant. Within a week the car displayed a serious fault and subsequent investigation revealed further serious defects. The car is not of satisfactory quality and unroadworthy within the meaning of the road traffic accident 1988. The defendant refused to repair the faults insisting the claimant return the car at his own cost so the claimant rejected the car on the basis of the defendant's fundamental breach and returned the car. The defendant has refused to reimburse the claimant for the cost of the car and associated costs and losses. Claimant seeks reimbursement of these.

(Auto generated statement....

I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.)
(Auto generated statement....

The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 04/11/2020 to 22/03/2021 on £3,965.88 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.87.)

Particulars of Claim

 

Between Claimant :    XXX

 

& Defendant :              XXX

 

1.   The claimant bought a Skoda Octavia Scout car registration XXX from the defendant with a 3 month warranty. 

2.   Within a week the car displayed a serious fault and subsequent investigation revealed further serious defects. The defects were reported to the defendant so was aware of the defects and the timeline. 

3.   The car is not of a satisfactory quality and unroadworthy within the meaning of the road traffic accident 1988. The vehicle could not be driven after investigation. 

4.   The defendant refused to consider any repairs unless the claimant return the car at his own expense which the claimant eventually did. 

5.   The defendant refused to repair all the faults and so the claimant rejected the vehicle on the basis of the defendant's fundamental breach. 

6.   The defendant has refused to honour their offer of a full refund and to reimburse the claimant for the cost of the car and associated costs and losses. 

7.   The claimant seeks reimbursement of the following costs & losses :

Car purchase price                          £3,495.00

Car transporter cost                        £   190.00

Independent engineers report        £   106.80 

Lost insurance                                 £    174.08

Total                                               £3,965.88 

plus interest and claim costs as prescribed in the Money claim procedure.

 

Statement of Truth

 

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true. 

 

Claimant signed :                                                                    Date:       

 

Print Name          :           

 

 

 

[AndyOrch]

For Information

The POC are restricted to 24 lines of 45 characters and a total of 1080 characters. If you type more than this the last part of your text will not appear on the claim. Please be aware that the website will only accept the following punctuation; full stop, comma, pound signs.

If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, please tick the box that appears after the statement ‘you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant’.

 

Please be aware this will then reduce the amount of space left in the main particulars box by three lines. This is because a statement is automatically added explaining you will be serving further particulars.

You will be able to see the extra information added in the next screen “Summary”.

 

 

 

.

[BankFodder]

Okay, sorry about the delay.

If you could kindly post up the the draft that you are proposing to put up on the money claim particulars and then we will work at that.

If you're getting confused by the money claim website then please ask questions here rather than going ahead without consulting us.

We are working hard to get it right for you and it's unhelpful when people start taking their own actions – even if they think that it's for the best.

There is almost never any need to send additional particulars of claim and it simply complicates the issue. Also, sending a minimal particulars of claim means that the other side are kept more in the dark other than as to the basic cause of action. They then normally produce a defence without the cues provided for them in the particulars of claim and it gives you a better idea of their hand.

The correspondence that has been exchanged between you has made them aware of pretty well all the issues anyway.

So please put up the draft that is too long and we will see about trimming it.

[Sc0ut]

Hi.  Thanks.   I précised it already in post #79 above.   If I uncheck the box for extra particulars, it would afford me an extra line.  See what you think.

[BankFodder]

Quote

The claimant bought a Skoda car registration xxx from the defendant car dealer. Within a week the car displayed a serious fault and investigation revealed further serious defects. The defendant is aware of the defects and the timeline. The car is not of a satisfactory quality and probably unroadworthy within the meaning of the road traffic accident 1988. The vehicle could not be driven. The defendant refused to consider any repairs unless the claimant return the car at his own expense – which the claimant eventually did. – The defendant refused to repair all the faults and so the claimant rejected the vehicle on the basis of the defendant's fundamental breach. The defendant has refused to reimburse the claimant for the cost of the car and associated costs and losses. The claimant seeks £3,495 [cost of the car], £190 car transporter cost, £106.80 [89 + Vat] cost of independent engineers report, £174.08 lost insurance- total £3,965.88 plus interest plus costs.

 

 

 

 The above is what I drafted for you previously. According to the account on my copy of Microsoft Word, it runs to 160 words – 980 characters including spaces.

Is this the one that you say doesn't fit?

[BankFodder]

Here is an updated draft which adds a further useful allegation to your particular claim.

 

Quote

The claimant bought a car registration xxx from the defendant dealer. Within a week it displayed a serious fault. Investigation revealed further serious defects. The defendant is aware of the defects and the timeline. The car is not of a satisfactory quality and probably unroadworthy within the meaning of the road traffic accident 1988. The vehicle could not be driven. Defendant  is also Trading unfairly within the meaning of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 as the Defendant refused to repair it unless the claimant returned the car at his own expense – which the claimant did. – The defendant refused to repair all the faults so the claimant rejected the car on the basis of the defendant's fundamental breach. The defendant has refused to refund the claimant the cost of the car and associated costs and losses. The claimant seeks £3,495 refund £190 car transporter cost, £106.80 cost of independent engineers report, £174.08 lost insurance- total £3,965.88 plus interest plus costs.

 

Please let me know if this fits. As far as I can see it comes to 1033 characters including spaces

Edited March 23, 2021 by BankFodder
amendments

[Sc0ut]

This is where it reaches .....

 

"The claimant bought a car registration xxx 
from the defendant dealer. Within a week it 
displayed a serious fault. Investigation 
revealed further serious defects. The 
defendant is aware of the defects and the 
timeline. The car is not of a satisfactory 
quality and probably unroadworthy within the 
meaning of the road traffic accident 1988. 
The vehicle could not be driven. Defendant  
is also Trading unfairly within the meaning 
of The Consumer Protection from Unfair 
Trading Regulations 2008 as the Defendant 
refused to repair it unless the claimant 
returned the car at his own expense – which 
the claimant did. – The defendant refused to 
repair all the faults so the claimant 
rejected the car on the basis of the 
defendant's fundamental breach. The defendant"

 

I think we can remove this "The vehicle could not be driven." as this is what they are relying on.  That's why I had added "after investigation".   My main defence when to their claim that I drove the car several thousand miles knowing that there was a fault  is that NO one told me that I shouldn't which I can show.

[BankFodder]

Where does this take you to?

 

Quote

The claimant bought a car registration xxx 
from the defendant dealer. Within a week it 
displayed a serious fault. Investigation 
revealed other serious faults.
Defendant is aware of the faults and the 
timeline. The car is of unsatisfactory 
quality and probably unroadworthy per the road traffic accident 1988. 
Defendant  is also trading unfairly per The Consumer Protection from Unfair 
Trading Regulations 2008 as the they 
refused to repair it unless the claimant 
paid for its return– which 
the claimant did. Defendant refused to 
repair all the faults so the claimant 
rejected the car for the defendant's fundamental breach. The defendant

[Sc0ut]

Ae you missing a bit at the end?   "The defendent"  .......

[BankFodder]

I simply taken what you did up to the word "the defendant" and reduced it.

Now you need to add the stuff that was missing from your version and see where that takes you to

[Sc0ut]

Ok .... we're down to FUNDAMENTAL

The claimant bought a car registration xxxxxxx from the defendant dealer. Within a week it displayed a serious fault. Investigation revealed other serious faults. Defendant is aware of the faults and the timeline. The car is of unsatisfactory quality and probably unroadworthy per the road traffic accident 1988. Defendant  is also trading unfairly per The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 as the they refused to repair it unless the claimant paid for its return– which the claimant did. Defendant refused to repair all the faults so the claimant rejected the car for the defendant's fundamental breach.

The defendant refused to repair all the faults so the claimant rejected the car on the basis of the defendant's fundamental breach. The defendant has refused to refund the claimant the cost of the car and associated costs and losses. The claimant seeks £3,495 refund £190 car transporter cost, £106.80 cost of independent engineers report, £174.08 lost insurance- total £3,965.88 plus interest plus costs

[Tony P]

I see regular references to "road traffic accident 1988".

 

Perhaps "Road Traffic Act 1988" was intended .

[BankFodder]

8 hours ago, Sc0ut said:

Ok .... we're down to FUNDAMENTAL

 

The claimant bought a car registration xxxxxxx from the defendant dealer. Within a week it displayed a serious fault. Investigation revealed other serious faults. Defendant is aware of the faults and the timeline. The car is of unsatisfactory quality and probably unroadworthy per the road traffic accident 1988. Defendant  is also trading unfairly per The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 as the they refused to repair it unless the claimant paid for its return– which the claimant did. Defendant refused to repair all the faults so the claimant rejected the car for the defendant's fundamental breach.

The defendant refused to repair all the faults so the claimant rejected the car on the basis of the defendant's fundamental breach. The defendant has refused to refund the claimant the cost of the car and associated costs and losses. The claimant seeks £3,495 refund £190 car transporter cost, £106.80 cost of independent engineers report, £174.08 lost insurance- total £3,965.88 plus interest plus costs

 

There is a duplicated sentence

[Sc0ut]

OK  .... we're down to "3,495"  ....

Quote

 

The claimant bought a car registration xxxxxxxx from the defendant dealer. Within a week it displayed a serious fault. Investigation revealed other serious faults. Defendant is aware of the faults and the timeline. The car is of unsatisfactory quality and probably unroadworthy per the Road Traffic Act 1988. Defendant  is also trading unfairly per The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 as the they refused to repair it unless the claimant paid for its return which the claimant did. Defendant refused to repair all the faults so the claimant rejected the car for the defendant's fundamental breach. The defendant has refused to refund the claimant the cost of the car and associated costs and losses. The claimant seeks £3,495 

refund £190 car transporter cost, £106.80 cost of independent engineers report, £174.08 lost insurance- total £3,965.88 plus interest plus costs.

 

Can't see how to further edit it save 2 words.     Just a thought, rather than lose the substance trying to edit out a whole line, the Extra Particulars posted were your words but just reformatted to look more official.  It adds a layer of complication on my side but its the same words & I don't mind if it means getting it right.

 

Thanks

[BankFodder]

Quote

The claimant bought a car reg xxxxxxxx from  defendant dealer. In a week it displayed a serious fault. Investigation revealed other serious faults. Defendant is aware of the faults and the timeline. The car is  unsatisfactory quality and probably unroadworthy per the Road Traffic Act 1988. Defendant  is also trading unfairly per The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 as they refused to repair it unless claimant paid for its return which the claimant did. Defendant refused to repair all the faults so  claimant rejected the car for the defendant's fundamental breach. The defendant  refused to refund the claimant for the car and costs and losses. The claimant seeks £3,495 

refund £190 car transporter , £106.80 independent engineer report, £174.08 lost insurance- total £3,965.88 + interest 

 

 

We are on our way there. See where that gets you. You don't need to put costs at the end because actually that's included in the form

[Sc0ut]

Yes ....  This is what MCOL puts in automatically ... The claimant claims interest under section 69
of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of
8% a year from 04/11/2020 to 22/03/2021 on
£3,965.88 and also interest at the same
rate up to the date of judgment or earlier
payment at a daily rate of £0.87.

[BankFodder]

Okay, in that case you how it fits without the reference to interest as well – as long as the interest is eventually claimed

[Sc0ut]

This fits ....

 

The claimant bought a car registration xxxxxxx from the defendant dealer. Within a week it displayed a serious fault. Investigation revealed other serious faults. Defendant is aware of the faults and the timeline. The car is of unsatisfactory quality and probably unroadworthy per the Road Traffic Act 1988. Defendant  is also trading unfairly per The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 as the they refused to repair it unless the claimant paid for its return which the claimant did. Defendant refused to repair all the faults so the claimant rejected the car for the defendant's fundamental breach.

The defendant has refused to refund the claimant the cost of the car and associated costs and losses. The claimant seeks full reimbursement 

 

Plus Mcol statement of interest

Edited March 24, 2021 by Sc0ut

[Sc0ut]

This is what it looks like on screen.  waiting to submit.

Moneyclaim Avon Car Sales Submission 2021-Mar-24.pdf

[BankFodder]

We haven't detailed your other losses. Just a total

I think you misunderstood me when I said don't bother to put costs at the end. I was referring to court costs. I think your losses need to be detailed – even if minimally

[BankFodder]

Quote

Claimant bought a car reg GV08XRR from the defendant. Within a
week it displayed a serious fault.
Inspection revealed more serious faults.
Defendant is aware of the faults and 
timeline. The car is unsatisfactory
and probably unroadworthy per 
Road Traffic Act 1988. Defendant is also
trading unfairly per The Consumer Protection
from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 as 
they refused to repair it unless the claimant
paid for its return which he did.
Defendant refused to repair all the faults so
the claimant rejected the car for the
defendant's fundamental breach.
The defendant has refused to refund the cost
of the car and associated costs and losses.
The claimant seeks full refund £XXX + Car transporter £XXX+inspection £XXX+Insurance £XXXX

does that work?

[Sc0ut]

Ok,  we stated that there were costs & losses & gave a total amount.  The dealer will fight the case & probably counter claim to reduce the amount he has to reimburse so the details will come out then won't they?  Else we put the details in extra particulars if needed.    

[Sc0ut]

Checking ... also remember that the details are in the letter of claim.

[Sc0ut]

Nah ... doesn't fit I'm afraid.   Finishes "+ Car"

[BankFodder]

Quote

Claimant bought a car reg GV08XRR from the defendant. Within a
week it displayed a serious fault.
A report revealed more serious faults.
Defendant is aware of the faults.The car is unsatisfactory
and probably unroadworthy per 
Road Traffic Act 1988. Defendant is also
trading unfairly per Consumer Protection
from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 as 
they refused to repair it unless claimant
paid for its return which he did.
Defendant refused to repair all the faults so
the claimant rejected the car for the
defendant's fundamental breach.
The defendant has refused to refund the cost
of the car and related losses.
The claimant seeks  refund £XXX + transporter £XXX+report £XXX+Insurance £XXXX

Try that