Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   I assume this mattress was the Tenants own property?   So after moving out the Tenants provided an attachment showing a stained mattress and wanting full deposit back and threatening to claim against you for this.   1. Tenants failed to notify you of this stained mattress issue until the end of tenancy after they had vacated the property.   2. You have no evidence that this was the actual mattress used in that property nor evidence to back up there claim the staining caused this mattress damage.  (i.e. one of them could have had an accident and wet the bed or done this when they moved from the property).     3. Ask them that you wish the mattress independently inspected. (which you are fully entitled to do and if it proves this claim is false it will be added to the deposit claim by you the landlord for damages as well as the Garden if you need to get landscapers in to carry out the work that should have been carried out by Tenants as per Tenacy Agreement and raised  by yourself (Landlord) on a few occasions which Tenants failed to rectify even at end of tenancy.   4. Ask them to provide you with the contact details of there Contents Insurance Company (tenants whether Private or Social Housing should always take out and have Contents Insurance but is up to that tenant) bet they don't provide it Big question is the Deposit protected in a Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) and those Tenants that have left were given a copy of the Prescribed Terms for that TDS? (Bear in mind you may need to tell TDS that you are in dispute with the Tenant about damages i.e. mattress and Garden)    
    • plenty of time to research and calm down. nothing much to do until the end of june.    
    • well ...... 1st you need to go back to post 1 and carefully read ALL this thread from the start again and pay attention to the advice and the undertones it explains about 'debt'.   2nd ...the truth is you owe no-one ANYTHING, the OC wrote off and sold the debt, and got most of it back against tax and business insurance schemes ...throw the morality card out the window...the OC did by selling the debt on for <10p=£1. and the DCa want the full balance ...id so many fools stopped paying powerless DCA's tomorrow, the whole industry would collapse overnight.   3rd the only reason this is still around your neck is because you failed to follow given advice...had you ..it would now be statute barred.      ^^^ very important research the M+S credit card debacle using our enhanced google searchbox on this page   as for the PAPLOC reply,   D.. desipte a previous CCA requests, the claimant has yet to supply any/all of the required paperwork.   i: delete [CC is attached to this reply form]"   
    • Hi again   Yes, it's been a lovely day weather wise.   Guess you've better things to do with weather like today than help with this problem, so thanks very much for your input, it's very much appreciated.   Late this afternoon I did receive a reply from the tenants, and they are asking me to go 50/50 with getting the garden sorted, not only that, as they have moved away they are expecting me to get the quotes.   Regarding you view on this issue, its so easy not to see the whole picture and my thoughts that the staining damp may be of their own doing didn't occur to me as I was so locked into the historical leak. Taking a closer look at the room in question today, I'm convinced that they are trying it on with the stained mattress- they did mail through a picture and then a receipt for supposedly the mattress. My wife and I then took both the pic and receipt to the bedding store where purchase was made to ask if the two married up, the picture does not show any emblems/manufactures logo or such to prove that this is the case, so we are none the wiser- our thoughts being that the stained mattress is from elsewhere.   A few days back I spoke to our letting agent regarding all of this, as was quite correctly mentioned there are two parts to this equation, namely the mattress and then the property.   Our agents mentioned to me that as an inventory was not carried out initially with the let, (hindsight) the pictures that were used to advertise the property could not be used as evidence to present to the TDS to be compared to the pictures now as there is no proof that the advertising pictures were in fact how the property was when the let started. I mentioned that all digital pictures have a means of finding when that pic was taken- Geo tag/Metadata- agent was quite surprised by this. The agents thoughts then went for a hide in a vacuum-   This is going off at a tangent here-many moons ago my wife studied computer science at a local University, one of her classmates who she is still in touch with is now a practising Solicitor. My wife suggested that maybe I give her a call, a bit rude I guess, but I did  phone and with the pleasantries out the way  I asked for her opinion of the best way to get this sorted. Her remit isn't landlord type stuff, however she will speak to a colleague on Monday and come back to me.   The property is due to be relet on the 21st, we will ensure that the new tenants move in to a home that is immaculate and welcoming, trouble is its getting a tadge close to get the garden issues sorted in time.   I know that all this will get closure in the end, but at the moment I've had more fun with a toothpick-   Again, many thanks.
    • The collection is currently stored at curator James Blower's home, but he has now found a space situated in an old bank premises where he hopes to exhibit them from this autumn or early next year. View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Hills Prestige of Lymington - defective vehicle,


Recommended Posts

Hi, we bought a car for £26k,

 

the following day the batteries failed, sorted by garage,

then noticed a coolant leak, sorted by me,

discovered the car had been in significant accident,

service history was incomplete.

 

The car was advertised as being immaculate and being well cared for and having a comprehensive service history.

 

We rejected the car under CPA 2015, garage did not comply.

Then we tried an ADR (RAC) who were useless, claiming the car was a trade sale! 

 

we are not a trader, did not sign anything agreeing to a trade sale.

 

So have now been advised by CAB that we could use Money Claims Online.

 

Do you think we have a good case?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

name names and whats the car and it s age?

and some dates of each issue please

 

the old trade sale dodgy went out the window a few years back.

 

 

 

 

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

Hi dx100uk, thanks for your reply,

 

The garage  is Hills Prestige of Lymington, https://www.hillsprestigecars.co.uk/ 

vehicle purchased 11.12.20, paid by Debit card,

 

car rejected, letter sent 6.1.2021,

 

vehicle is a 2013 Toyota Landcruiser.

 

Battery issue 12.12.20, the garage paid for new batteries, 

 

coolant loss a few days later which I fixed.

This is when I noticed there was accident damage which had been repaired,

 

I have had an independent inspection confirming accident damage.

 

We also didn't realise at the time of purchase that the garage was selling the car on behalf of someone else.

The service history was 8 months out of date, but was advertised as it being full and comprehensive and well cared for. and the car immaculate.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please will you post up any documents in PDF format. It's much easier to read especially for people with small screens.

Is there any evidence at all that it wasn't a trade sale?

 

Also, I expect you notice that my site team colleague has restructured your opening post to introduce them spacing and punctuation.
It would be helpful if you would present all your posts in a way which is more accessible. You will get much more enthusiastic support and better help if people don't have to struggle to read your story.

Thanks

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what evidence there could be , it was advertised on Autotrader, and we bought it! We are not trades people and are retired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that you've had an inspection which has confirmed the damage. Have you had the vehicle inspected generally to identify the defects?

On the basis of what you have told us I don't see why you shouldn't be able to rely on the right to reject – but you should understand that simply because the consumer rights act provides for a right to reject, it doesn't replace or supplant the common law of contract in any way and so you still have your general contractual rights.

In other words, regardless what the RAC say – you still have excellent rights.
We are finding that the right to reject under the consumer rights act seems to be pretty toothless and is generally ignored by most traders and people still find that they have to litigate.

 

 

When I say it was there any evidence that it was a private sale and they were simply selling on behalf of somebody else, I mean for instance was that pointed out to you in the original advertisement or by the dealer who should you run the vehicle?

If there is any basis upon which they can argue that you are fully aware that it was a private sale then it makes things a little more tricky as far as contract law is concerned – you wouldn't take the benefit of the consumer rights act although you can still fall back on the common law of contract.

It will make things easier all round if there is absolute no indication that they were selling for a private seller because on that basis, it is a trade sale regardless.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • BankFodder changed the title to Hills Prestige of Lymington - defective vehicle,

Yes no indication that it was a private sale until we asked for our money back under right to reject.

 

With regards to repairs, the only outstanding defects seem to be slight misalignment of ns wing, overspray on components inside engine compartment, but we were able to find out some of the parts replaced from Toyota, such as ns wing, bonnet, front bumper, front grill, A/C radiator, inner flitch plate which is poorly finished and front bumper support. That doesn’t count as Immaculate to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And presumably it has been thoroughly checked out mechanically. You're confident that you have identified all the defects.

Your situation is this:

You can certainly bring a County Court claim against the dealer and on the basis of what you say, you will probably win. Under ordinary contract law, it might be considered that the breach of contract is not overly serious and you have not been deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract. On that basis you would more likely to be awarded a sum of damages to reflect the reduced value of the vehicle had it been correctly advertised.
Under ordinary contract law, the breach would have had to be so serious that it could be said that you had been deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract. This is what is called in law – a fundamental breach – and this would allow you to treat the contract as terminated.

This is where you find a difference between ordinary contract law – the common law of contract – and the statutory rights provided under the Consumer Rights Act. Under the Consumer Rights Act, because you have identified a defect and asserted your right to reject within 30 days, then you are entitled to reject the entire contract simply on the basis that the vehicle is not of satisfactory quality – even though you have not been deprived of the whole benefit of the contract because you are still driving the thing around. In other words, the car is not up to the standard that you would expect considering all the circumstances – and particularly in view of the price – about £26,000, even though it is generally speaking a working vehicle.
This is why you are better off suing under the Consumer Rights Act because I understand that you want to reject the vehicle and you would not be prepared to accept a reduction in price – although you could negotiate this if you wanted.

The complicating factor here is the value of the vehicle. If the dealer Hills Prestige of Lymington,  want to stick their heels in, then you will be obliged to bring a County Court claim against them. Where a claim is for a figure less than £10,000, the action is allocated to the small claims track. Small claims track rules concerning costs are that even if you lose your case, you won't have to bear the costs of the winner. In other words each party bears their own costs. This is done to discourage expensive litigation. It doesn't always work because large corporations don't give a fig and they will spend huge amounts of money trying to crush their customers rather than settle claims which are worth a tiny fraction of the litigation costs; all too often they are bullies.

Where the claim is more than £10,000 then it gets allocated to the fast track. This means that if you lose the case then you will have to bear a substantial portion of the costs of the winning party. This can act as a real disincentive to litigate.
The problem is that some companies use this as an opportunity to intimidate their customer – who is generally speaking a litigant in person – with the prospect of substantial costs in the event that the customer loses the action. This can put a lot of people off very understandably.

Your chances of success here are extremely good that you need to be aware that your risk factor if you lost, you might be faced with a fairly high level of costs – which could be more than £5000.
If Hills Prestige of Lymington, decide that as part of the litigation strategy they want to intimidate you, then they could litigate in a way which causes obstacles and delays and which incurs greater costs for them and they would do this simply to raise in your mind the spectre that if you were to lose, then you would be liable for a large proportion of those costs incurred.

It's a nasty – who-blinks-first – style of litigation. It doesn't always happen but it can do. Conversely, if you brought this action and you wln then they would have to pay your costs. Perversely though, because (I imagine) you would be bringing the action yourselves, you would only be able to recover your costs at a litigant in person rate which is currently about £18 per hour. I say it's perverse because if you decided that you wanted to employ lawyers to represent you, they would be able to recover their costs at the professional rate. It's also perverse because even though you might decide to try and save money and incur only litigant in person costs, if you lost the action you would have to pay the dealer's costs at the professional way of their legal representatives – assuming that they used professional legal assistance.

If you wanted to bring a legal action then we can help you all the way although of course it would be you who would be going to court. We would simply be advising you and helping you to draft your documents and advising you on strategy.
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

wow, thank you so much for such a comprehensive reply, the vehicle has thrown up some engine management issues, warning lights etc which have been cleared with a code reader, likely to return though.  

I have been told that I could use 'Money Claims Online', what do you think? Its a new service I believe. I don't think there is such an opportunity for obfuscation and costs are limited to 4.5% of the value of the claim, I think!

Edited by 2Ridgebacks
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes of course. That's the only way to go. The county court system in this country is excellent and the ease Of access is probably the best in the world.

 

However, this is not something you want to rush into. We need to do some careful preparation. It won't take very long but we need to make sure that we have all the information together and also that you understand the steps involved in bringing a claim in the county court.

It's pretty straightforward but it will make you much more confident if you understand the route rather than have to ask us every step of the way.

 

Please start reading up the steps in bringing a small claim in the county court. Although I have referred you to the small claims process, there isn't a huge amount of difference when you get things going. We have pretty well all of the information you need on this website.

 

 

We also need to understand what further information you should put together if any. I would be especially interested to understand why the RAC have knocked you back.

 

Please monitor for a further reply tomorrow

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
This the reply from RAC, we did not get a receipt, and had no idea about a trade sale. The sales invoice seems to have been created later to satisfy the RAC as there are no signatures on it, the HPI check shows it was carried out on 7.4.2021!
Quote


I can confirm we have been in contact with the selling dealership, Hills of Lymington also known as Hills Prestige and they have provided us with a copy of the vehicle sales invoice which shows that the vehicle was purchased as a trade sale, I have attached this for you. The dealership have also advised us that they were not aware of any accident damage to the vehicle and provided a copy of the HPI report, which is also attached.
 
Unfortunately, we are unable to continue with our ADR Service, as this does not apply to vehicles purchased through a trade sale.

 

I understand this was not the response you were hoping for, but unfortunately, we are unable to assist you further in this instance. I would recommend seeking legal advice for guidance on what your next steps would be.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

forget the trade sale con

it's NOT a trade sale and wouldn't matter even if it was..you paid via a debit card draw against a personal bank A/C which is obviously not a trader, under a business account and a trade.

 

not sure why the RAC even mentioned trade, they must know its a total red herring and has even been on watchdog and rouge traders about this con numerous times as well as court cases!...shame on them!!

 

you paid the dealer, look at your bank A/C... you didn't pay the owner that the dealer was selling it supposedly on behalf of. another untrue get out con.

 

 

  • Like 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

Is there a misunderstanding here?

 

I had gathered that the dealer had said that they were selling on behalf of someone else - a private owner - and therefore the sale was not a trade sale and therefore not subject to the 2015 Act.

 

But my site team colleague is suggesting that this not be correct and that in fact the dealer is saying that they sold the car to you and that you were buying it as a trader and therefore it was a "trade sale" and therefore not subject to the 2015 Act.

 

In fact going back over the posts so far I see that both scenarios may have been suggested.

The RAC seems to be saying that the sale was a trade sale - within the trade.  The dealer seems to be saying that they were selling on behalf of someone else - I am presuming a private owner on commission.

I suppose that we had better clear this up - although if no indication of any of this was given at the time of sale that it is a standard consumer contract and subject to the 2015 Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to see the RAC report

We need to see the advertising which was used to sell the car

We need to see the exchange which you have already had with the dealer.

 

We will also need to see this invoice or other evidence that people are relying on to suggest that it is a trade sale.

Please can you post these documents up in PDF format - single file multipage. The right way round and in the correct order

 



Also, it is likely that you will have to litigate on this. Are you prepared to do so? Are you happy to do it on your own with our assistance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

can you explain 'single file multipage' please.

I am having difficulty converting some files to PDF, Adobe says 'not supported file' I do have however the advert transcript provided by Auto Trader in PDF format.

 

I can confirm that we were not given an invoice, the invoice the RAC have seems to be a fabrication and it is not signed by us.

They also produced an HPI check, which again we were not given, supporting the fact that they were un aware of any damage, interestingly it is dated 7.4.21! I will attach this too.

We were only aware the dealer was selling for a third party when we sent a letter rejecting the car.

 

 

Edited by 2Ridgebacks
Link to post
Share on other sites

read our upload<<clickme guide 2RB.

 

there are websites that will convert things to PDF listed

or just type in a browser 'online convert to pdf'

 

 

 

 

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

you paid the dealer, you got charged VAT. cant be a trade sale. nor negate your rights

'selling for someone else' is BS, again you paid the dealer look at the payee on your bank statement its the dealer

 

Trade Sale - Sold As Seen (dragon2000.co.uk)

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

In terms of a single file multipage PDF file, I'm referring to a single file which holds several pages.

So instead of scanning a document of, say, five pages into five separate files, all five would find themselves in the same file and then within that file, one can simply move from page to page.

If you don't have a scanner – then get one. For the amount of money you are trying to recover here, an outlay of £70 or £80 is nothing for a scanner and it will last for years. When you start scanning, you will have an opportunity to add a new page and then another page until you have scanned all the pages in your document.

It won't take you long to understand it and it will always be a useful thing to do

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

Our upload guide tells you how to merge multiple pdf docs into one file. This makes it easier for everyone to read and advise, especially those working from a phone.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite a lot of questions to ask and some that is to write so please check back to this thread tomorrow

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very sorry but I had a rather complicated weekend and I haven't managed to get back to this. I will respond tomorrow during the day

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I still don't understand what they mean by a trade sale and what evidence there is for that and why the RAC accepted that.

 

So far as I can make out, that would be the only possible defense they might have to an action involving the consumer rights act. In terms of an action simply based on the common law of contract, then a trade sale would not amount to a defense in this circumstance because you have the other spend which says that the car was in immaculate condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also did not sign anything agreeing a trade sale, the document the RAC produced is a fabrication.

There is also the matter of the incomplete service history, and the faults days after collection.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to have signed an agreement to make it a trade sale. It could simply be the circumstances that it would be a trade sale. Normally speaking this would mean that you were buying as a trader in the course of business and they were selling as a trailer in the course of business.

This is what I understand as a trade sale

 

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...