Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I remember a similar issue with a customer claiming that 'alexia' had ordered something that wasn't ordered and when it should have been off, .. with Amazon quoting evidence that they had that the customer had said a word 'similar' to the activation word - which 'accidentally' activated it .. followed by 'accidental' ordering due to interpreting what was said   I would not ever consider one of these things in my house.
    • is installing an Alexa type device in your home similar to having bug listening devices installed by Police or security services ?   Woman finds recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa – and you can hear yours WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Amazon customers can request all their data from the shopping giant, and can automatically delete voice data in the Alexa app  
    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

taking car trader to small claims court


Recommended Posts

Hi, 

I was wondering if someone could help me please. I am taking a trader to court for my late father's car, as it was sold with undisclosed, pre-existing issues.

 

The car was paid by cash (£500 deposit by debit card, £5000 paid by bank transfer) and part exchange of my father’s previous car in Sept 2019, and the car was collected mid Oct 2019. There was a 12 month warranty given with the car, although this was not in writing however  my brother in law was present at the time of sale when this was mentioned.

 

I only have the deposit receipt but have managed to contact my father’s bank which shows the bank transfer transaction. Two weeks after my father had the car, he reported some electrical issues with the car (around late October 2019) so it was returned to the trader to rectify. These issues included the rear view camera, TV screen and blind spot assist on side mirrors not working.

 

I'm not sure exactly when the car was returned but I know it was with the trader for a very long time. I have text messages and call logs from my father’s phone which shows the contact attempts and conversations from my father chasing the time it was taking to repair the car. I believe the trader had the car "for repairs" from Oct 2019 - Feb 2020, and then again from March 2020 - Aug 2020, apart from a weekend in late Nov when my dad required use of the car over the weekend, and a few weeks in Feb whereby my father was again arranging for the car to be taken in for repairs due to the fault not being rectified.

 

Once the electrical issues were finally resolved and the car was returned (in Aug 2020), my father immediately noticed a new fault which had appeared while the car had been in the trader's possession (a loud ticking noise from the engine). He once again contacted the trader and was advised to take the car for a long drive. This did not rectify the issue, and my father reported this to the trader and the car was taken for repair (in August 2020) after a week of the car being returned. The trader has had the car ever since.

 

My father passed in January of this year, and the car has been in the trader's possession since about Aug 2020, in addition to the trader having the car for the majority of time prior to this.

 

I am named as the Executor of the Will and have been trying to sort this out to no success. We (the family) initially wanted the car back for the funeral day in Feb, but the trader was unable to return the car as was “still awaiting parts to be fitted”.  I have been in contact with the trader from Feb – April 2020, contacting him by phone / texts most days for updates, and looking back now, I believe I have been fobbed off, as had my father. I have made notes in my phone summarising the conversations we had for my own records.

 

I have had no evidence whatsoever as to what attempts at repairs (if any) have been done, I don't know where the car is located, as apparently it had to go to another specialist garage, nor has the trader sent me photos of the condition of the car, despite numerous requests. The car is now apparently in an undriveable state, and I have no knowledge what the trader has done with the car. I have visions of the engine all dismantled, and in bits… its really upsetting to be honest. It’s not as if I can even take it to another garage for a second opinion now. Its in a worse condition now, than when he took it from us.

 

So, to date, I have followed the Citizen’s advice process, writing letters to the trader, requesting a refund of the car under the Consumer Good Act 2015 for the supply of faulty goods. In addition, the time it has taken to repair the faults has been unreasonable which also falls under the Act, so I have included this in the letters too, although we have been more than understanding with the Pandemic situation. I have also mentioned ADR to the trader and have not had any responses back from the trader. I believe he took advantage of my father’s good nature and abused his trust.

 

Now that my father is no longer here, the trader is in effect holding us to ransom, and using this to his advantage and making untrue statements, such as my father agreed to pay for the repairs, which was definitely not the case, as my sisters and I had various conversations with him about the car, and not once did he mention that he had to pay / contribute towards the repairs. Nor is there any written confirmation (email / texts) that this was the case. My father only had the car for a total of about 4/5 weeks since he purchased it due to the ongoing issues and the length of time it has taken for the trader to repair the issues, and which is still ongoing and outstanding.

 

I have never filed a claim before, and just wanted some advice on this situation really. What is the likelihood that this will go in our favour if we did file a court claim? All we want is the money back now, or as closest to what my father paid for it. I guess the way I see it is that I have nothing to lose, apart from about £500 for the online fee.

 

Also, I wanted some advice on the “Particulars of claim” section of the online form. I’m not sure how much detail is required, i.e. do I need to include all the evidence / dates with when my father and I have contacted him, and detailed chronological sequence of events? Or can I put this together later? I know there was a previous thread (in 2017) with a similar issue and just wondered if I could view the document to help with me writing my statement.

 

Any help would be appreciated. 😊

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, welcome to CAG.

 

I've moved your thread to the Vehicle Manufacturers and Retailers subforum for further advice plese.

 

You mention a thread from 2017, can you post a link to that please? Normally, even if it's locked you should be able to read documents on it.

 

Best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to create your own topic

hit create in the top red banner.

 

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

Firstly I hope you can see that my site team colleague has taken time to restructure your post. We need to have posts properly spaced and punctuated please. Otherwise they are extremely difficult to read especially when people are using the small screen.

Secondly, are you saying that the dealer who is holding your car is in fact the same company Kevin Adey Car Sales, or are you simply saying it is a similar story?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Noted about the structure of post - thank you. I will ensure this is followed for future posts

 

No, it is not the same company, just a similar kind of story when I had skim read it, and also just wanted to see the PDF attachment for the claim form

 

@dx100uksorry I don't understand - am new to this site, so just trying to figure out how it works etc. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case what is the name of the car dealers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting to know the name of the dealer – and by the way, I don't think you are at all in a position to begin a legal action yet.

I can imagine that you are not even sure of your cause of action yet or how much you are going to be suing for.

There are a lot of questions to ask you and you need to engage with this thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather not mention the name of the garage at the moment as wouldn’t want it to affect my case in future. It is an independent garage and not a franchise. 
 

And the advice given by my employee assistance service through my employers have advised that I can persue this as I am the executor of the will and the car forms part of the estate. 
 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no downside to mentioning the name of the dealer.

 

There is no reason to protect him and it will help us to to ascertain the best course of action and also so the best means of enforcement if you let us know.

also it may help others who may be victims as well.

 

There is no way this can possibly hurt your case will put you at any disadvantage whatsoever.

 

On the contrary, your protection of the dealer will bring comfort to him

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting to learn the name of the trader.

Also, your initial post is pretty involved retaining lots of narrative which is not necessary.

It would help if you give us a bullet pointed chronology of events. Also we don't know the price which was paid for this car.

 

I also realise that we don't know anything about the car either. – Make, model, mileage – et cetera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

like I’ve explained, I do not wish to name the trader at this time. 
 

I will add bullet point chronology of events shortly 


make & model - Jaguar XF

mileage when bought in Oct 2019 approx 80,646

my dad was on furlough for most of 2020 and due to the car being in the garage he barely drove the car so couldn’t have done more than a couple of hundred miles if that 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

04.09.2019 – car paid for £10,500 (debit card transaction £500, bank transfer £5000, part-ex of previous vehicle value of £5000)

 

12.10.2019 – Car is picked up. Vehicle under 12 month warranty

 

24.10.2019 – father contacts trader to report (electrical) fault, and books car in to be looked at

 

04.11.2019 – 28.11.2019 -  car is returned to trader to be repaired. 

 

29.11.2019 – 01.12.2019 – car returned back to my dad for use for the weekend, repair is still outstanding

 

w/c 02.12.2019 – dad returns car back to trader to complete repair

 

w/c 27.01.2020 – dad collects car from trader for use, fault still outstanding and car still unrepaired

 

10.02.2020 – 12.03.2020 – dad tries to contact defendant via phone / texts to repair ongoing / outstanding issue with car. Car is collected by trader sometime in March 2020

 

LOCKDOWN 1.0 starts  23.03.2020 - May/June 2020????.   Car garages closed. 

 

March 2020 – August 2020 – car in trader's possession, dad not fully aware of what repairs were being carried out, no adequate updates provided

 

August 2020 – car returned, however upon return of the car, new fault identified which appeared whilst in trader's possession and reported to trader (loud ticking noise from engine). Trader advises that had to top engine up with oil and to take the car for a long drive to resolve, which does not rectify the problem. Dad takes car back to defendant for the fault to be looked at.

 

August 2020 – present day – trader in possession of the car, repairs are still outstanding, car left in an undriveable state. Numerous requests have been made to the trader to advise of location and photos of car, but not sent to date

 

October 2020 – MOT / Car tax ran out. Trader aware as dad spoke to him about this to carry out MOT

 

Mid Jan 2021 - April 2021 - myself and other family members in contact with trader to return the vehicle. Told the car requires a new engine after various attempts at repairing / refurbishing engine parts (although no evidence of this from trader). 

 

06.04.2021 – 1st letter requesting refund (as faulty goods under Consumer Rights Act 2015) sent to trader, no response

 

22.04.2021 – 2nd letter sent to trader (ADR), no response

 

01.05.2021 – 3rd letter sent to trader (ADR and warning of court action), no response

Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't given us any details about the car or is that a secret as well

Please will you post up the three letters that you sent in a single file multi page PDF format

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using a phone before and I didn't notice that you had put up the car details.

Thank you

Although I don't think we have the mileage or the year

 

As I previously posted, we would like to see the letters that you sent in multipage single file PDF format.

Do you know that your secret trader is still trading? How far is the trader away from where you are in the country?

From the chronology you posted above, it would appear that the trader has never communicated with you at all – not even a single instance. Is this correct?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And as a matter of curiosity – I'd be very interested to know exactly what you stand to lose or what disadvantage there might be to you by telling us the name of the trader.

This is something we often have in this forum that people are reluctant because either they think it will prejudice them all because they think they will get into trouble.

One thing you need to understand is that this forum is not a piece of social media. You not here for a chat. You are here to get the job done and once we understand exactly everything, we will help you move forward at a pace which will astonish you.

One thing I should caution you about immediately is that when you bring a legal action – as you surely will have to, it looks as if the value of the action will be more than £10,000. The small claims limit is £10,000 on anything over that goes unto the fast track.
If you sue on the small claims track for a figure less than £10,000 then even if you lose, you will not have to pay any costs of the other side. If you see on the fast track then if you lose then you may end up paying a substantial proportion of the winners costs.
This is something to be borne in mind. It is a very important consideration

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

letters .pdf

 

The trader is about 6 miles from where I am, so not far. And yes he is still trading. 

 

And regarding the value, if I put in the value of the claim as £10,000, it adds on the fee of £455, so value of claim is £10,445. Therefore does this still qualify for small claims (i.e. does it include the fee in the total), or would I need to reduce the claim amount so that it is under £10,000 including the fee.  Ultimately, I would be happy with the market value of the car if it was in full working order which is about £9-10k. 

 

Looking at my dad's phone history, there is a long list of phone records (missed calls, where my dad has tried to call him and got through / not got through, the trader calling my dad) from Oct 2019 - Dec 2020. 

There is also a text conversation where I have pieced together the gaps as such

 

When I started speaking to him, I made notes of our conversations with what was discussed, and I also have text message conversations with him. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And when you say that your secret trader is still trading, you know that it's actually the same business and they haven't Phoenixed themselves? Have you checked?

Do you know if there are any outstanding judgements against them which haven't yet been satisfied?

Earlier on you said that this was not a franchise it was an independent business. I don't know if you find that reassuring but I can tell you that it could add complications

Link to post
Share on other sites

how can I check this information please, re the Phoenixed, and outstanding judgments? 

 

And how can it add to complications if they are an independent business?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is probably lots more information that can be had about these people – and it is much more complicated if thou an independent business because they are probably much more nimble if it comes to a point where they want to avoid responsibility or avoid a judgement.

For a judgement of about £10,000 or so, they may consider that it is worthwhile avoiding any enforcement judgement.

You won't let us know the name and so we would be unable to help you on this point. As I've already said, there are no downsides to revealing the name of this company. There certainly are downsides to not revealing the name.

Don't imagine that I'm simply asking this question as a matter of curiosity. We have much better things to do

Link to post
Share on other sites

The company is still active - was incorporated in June 2012. 

 

The company was previously trading under a different but similar name from Sept 2009 - Aug 2013, but the company was dissolved. The dissolved company had 3 directors, one of which is the director of the current company, that I have been dealing with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to taking car trader to small claims court

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...