Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Metropolitan collection services appear to be part of HSBC and Moorcroft work with many Banks to continue the collection activities, once the Bank no longer wishes to do the administration.   I suspect therefore that HSBC still own the debt ? Does the Moorcroft letter confirm this ?   For the £12 a year you are paying, I am not sure it is worth mucking around too much.
    • Well that's it then.   You went in the entrance which simply said you had to be a KFC customer, which you intended to be.   Once you worked out it was closed and read the signage you promptly left, in all of 11 minutes.    Their signage is rubbish and you've proved it.  Well done on digging up this evidence.
    • This is a long time issue and a little complicated so I'll attempt to condense.   Barclays account: held with them over 25yrs, opend in the 90's £6800 overdraft   15 years ago the account became a problem due to account holder due illness/company closing/long term disabilities.   No activity on the account other than what is stated below, card not used, balance always kept just under the o/d level so as not to incur further costs.   In those 15 yrs (2006)the account has been maintained each month by Barclays applying the o/d interest and the account holder paying that amount.  In the early years about £120 pm, then it went to £3per interest so worked out and around £90pm and late last year with the interest hike by the banks on O/d's it took the amount close to £180pcm    In  / around 2012 the account holder approached the bank with a view to receving some help, they were at that time somewhat ill, and registered as disabled. They asked that they convert the amount to a loan with them so that over time the balance would reduce. The Bank refused but instead put them through to another in-house lender, (woolwich) on internal line, they took the details but then didn't offer the loan.   Account holders health deteriorated but they insisted with their family members to continue to pay the overdraft, they were petrified of what may happen if they didn't.   In 2014 a SAR's was asked of Barclays which they sent but it didn't give much away, but importantly neither did it mention the customer going into the branch for the help.   In 2019 the customer via a third party who also obtained a third party mandate  approached the bank with a lengthy correspondence asking for help, they gave as much info as they could.   A month later then bank stated they believed they had not acted incorrectly as the account had been held to the good by the miniumum payments on the account being met, in short unless the account tripped they would not know there was a problem.   It was pointed out to the bank that under the terms of the original agreement and backed up by a letter from the bank way back as early as 2003 that the overdraft had been increased and that the account would be reviewed annually and that the account for the overdraft to remain in place would need to be kept in good order.    It's clear no annual review from at least 2006 had taken place as 'good order' was that the account was to be seen to be going in and out of credit whch of course was not the case, it hasn't been in the black since 2005/6   The bank refused to budge , also denied that the customer had been into the branch in 2012 and in any case as it was 2019 they didn't have to go that far back with a complaint if it had not been raised before.   Thats stage 1   A complaint was raised with the Ombudsman in late 2019, they accepted the complaint and lodged with Barclays that an account had been logged and that they (Ombudsman) were thus engaged on the account.   In the meantime the customer continued to maintain the account with Barclays as per the previous 13 years at the same time as providing info to the Ombudsman when it was requested.   Barclays wrote asking the customer to call them, but they had been put on notice in the original complaint that the Customer wanted all communication in writing, three times barclays asked for them to call despite them knowing the customer was 'vulnerable'  and still they continued the account knowing that the customer was only paying them out of the disability payments etc...   Barclays were sent 3 letters via signed delivery asking that all communication be put in writing, the customer wanted to establish a papertrail so no room for error or misinterpretation similar to Barclays 2012 denial that the customer had been into the branch, all 3 letters were signed for all 3 letters went unanswered.   Late 2019/early 2020 Barclays were out of desperation contacted on the phone but as the account had not been placed in collections' then nobody from the department could speak to the customer ????   In or around March 2020 the Ombudsman wrote to the customer stating they were a week away from a resolution and that they were just awaiting for it to be signed off by a senior investigator.   3 weeks later Covid hit but no resolution had been sent, a month or so later an email was sent to the Ombudsman requesting clarification and a month later they wrote back saying 'it's a week away (again) and they'll be in touch and then the case went cold, nothing heard and no return of phone calls to them.   After months of delays and after not hearing from the Ombudsman a letter was sent to one of their senior Ombudsman who replied that they'd take a look and be back in touch in a week and which they were and where they stated that the case: A: Should not have been taken on by the original investigator as it was above their remit, it should also have been picked up by another investigator when it was looked at during the initial process but again it wasn't. B: As the case had been incorrectly assigned it was then unassigned and placed on hold and for the following reason: C :  The case was of a sort that the banks and the Ombudsman have been discussing, no reasons for the discussion was given but as the case fell into this criteria it was on hold pending the discussions being concluded by the banks/ombudsman.   In short just over 12 months of the case first being allocated/engaged it had been unallocated/disengaged and placed on hold.   A second complaint was therefore lodged with the Ombudsman which was duly investigated and a nominal amount was offered for what they stated was poor service.  This amount was refused and the complaint was then sent to the Assessor (next step) but they wrote back stating that until the case had been finalised by the Ombudsman the assessor would not be able to investigate the complaint.   Updated were occasionally given by the Ombudsman on the state of the original complaint against Barclays but even that dropped into the abyss early 2021.    After a recent request to the Ombudsman to ask if the 2019 onwards discussions with the banks had been concluded an email was sent back saying that the case was just about to be reallocated (no answer as to if their discussions had concluded.   A week later an new case investigator was placed onto the case, they had written to Barclays and were awaiting their response.   1 week later they investigator came back with:   Barclays are offering to write the account off and to close the account.   And that is where they're stuck,  15yrs of overdrafts fees being paid, (almost 2.7 times the orignal amount of the o/d) with Barclays refusing to budge, then out of the blue came the offer.   The offer is on the table for a few weeks, but is it an offer to take?   When intial contact was made the bank with the complaint in 2019 they did nothing on the o/d account but very quickly (1 week) shut down one of the Barclayscard credit cards the customer had with them and placed the other at £250 limit (the limits before that were collectively 25k but had not been used for some years)     I have read somewhere that this 'credit card' balance reduction affected the credit worthability of a credit card holder, it's an indirect hit on them and this seems borne out as although the customer has a good credit record (not really facilitating it) they have been refused credit from a source they have always used and who they have never had any problem with before and this is only after the Barclaycard issue.     Sorry for the elognated post but for me, the offer whilst it may seem ok, well if it's their offer now and whilst they may withdraw the offer I think it has more legs? The customer should never have bee allowed to get where they've been for the last 15 years......Barclays have had considerably more than the original o/d and they want to stick to terms and conditions but then seem to flout them themselves by not conducting regular reviews or even as recent as knowing a customer is struggling and they still continue onwards unabated.     Deb                                                          
    • cash cowed blind. just run the sb date to infinity for 15yrs.     who are moorcrofts client please   and i bet you have a bank account and or a card with hsbc too...
    • It was for an HSBC personal bank loan of 20k Was passed onto metropolitan collection services which agreed the £1 payment plan and have paid them every month since and they have left me alone. The new DCA is moorcroft and balance is still roughly them same.  I have always paid the agreed £1 as if I got a ccj I would lose my job.
  • 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...