Jump to content


Complete Auto 100, Nottingham - Car purchased in July - Annual service discovers crack in head - **SETTLED**


 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 147 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Thank you. What is the expected mileage of this vehicle?

I think one might need to take into consideration that it has 36,000 miles on the clock and that you have enjoyed a further 2500 miles which means that it now has about 38,500 miles on the clock – is this correct?

I think then you need to consider that mileage – 38,500 as a percentage of the expected life of the engine and that tells you something about the proportion of any settlement which you might reasonably expect

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.

 

Engine heads are not considered consumable items - I don't think i should be looking for a deduction in cost due to wear and tear - especially since it is not a wear fault.? Life of a vehicle is also subjective. Saying that, its a well known make for reliability, and I know that other people own models from them have gone once round the clock. and still going strong so whats the yard stick?

Edited by Ubwa
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a wear and tear issue. It's really about how much value you had out of it before having to fork out big bucks to get an issue sorted out.

Once round the clock means how much?

Link to post
Share on other sites

more than 999 999 miles. Not on this model mind, but I have always owed Toyotas/Lexus's and never had any mechanical issues with them. My other car is a different model with the same engine with 50k miles, and I have had so much as an advisory on it. It's a 2011 car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine – although I'm just help you do a few calculations to give them a bit of breathing space in case they happen to make an interesting offer.

In negotiations, it's always helpful to have something hidden in your left hand so that you are able to propose something which allows the other side to save some Face – instead of feeling that they have simply given in without a fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, and I know you are right - I just spend all my working life negotiating/fighting/being assertive - it's not something I want to deal with in my personal time. While I may seem to come across as not being as hard as I can be ont he matter or meek, I can turn "work" mode on, but I want an easy life and path of least resistance. As if I turn up to level 11 they get their backs up and get more difficult, and then we are in March in a court room.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will post what I sent and reply when at a computer, but quick update via phone.

 

they replied back to my email re-asserting my rights and setting of a deadline before I have to pay for it myself quoting the much banded “we have 8 weeks” story and saying if I pay for it myself they won’t be interested. 
 

is it worth warning them I am prepared to go to court over this or to just do it? I probably have to at least send a letter before action?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply giving them a warning that you are prepared to go to court is meaningless and they will consider that that is a sign of weakness.

A letter of claim and then issue the proceedings is the only way.

However, don't imagine that that will move them either. There won't be any quick fix on this and you can expect this to last at least a couple of months or so – and maybe longer.

This again I'm going to say that your best interests will be, if you can afford it, to make sure that you have got to independent diagnosis of the vehicle and quotes for the work – and then proceed with the work having given them five days to consider the quotes and to raise objections.

Then you can sue for the cost of the work plus interest. It will be much easier for you to bring the action, more profitable and it will cause the finance company much greater problem because they will know that they aren't holding the car over you. And of course the car will be fixed and to that extent you can move on and start driving it.

I'm afraid that suing them without having had the work carried out is simply going to cause you delays, inconvenience – I can imagine that the garage which is holding the car at some point will start to object and will want storage charges. Although, of course, you can claim the storage charges from the finance company, it simply adds to the complications.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a second quote, although this to me is still adding more unnecessary overhead/time than needed as the repair on offer from the main dealer is unbeatable- as the quote shows. They also have a monopoly on the parts- as no matter who fixes it, they will need to get the parts from Lexus. The fault is also a crack in some metal - it is not complicated.

 

I am at the dealership now awaiting the finance companies inspector. Depending on how that goes I’ll get another done. I have already had an initial report that backs up Lexus but they obviously can’t officially sign off on it without seeing the car which is the next step.

 

I am confused by one thing thing though, I thought the rights exist to protect the customer and prevent me having to fork out the fix, then chase it. If that’s the case, there is no point on the right to repair/reject clause and everyone should just go straight to good old litigation and sort it out at the county court?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rights certainly exist – but of course they depend on everybody recognising their rights and their obligations and not causing any problems.

As soon as you get people deciding that maybe they can wriggle out of their obligations – then you have to start getting assertive about it and then take County Court action.
Personally I think the right to repair/reject clause is pretty paperthin and it would be far more useful if the consumer rights act also said that where a dealer avoided their obligations, they would then be subject to a penalty – such as having to pay costs in a court action if they lost.

As it is, that part of the consumer rights act lacks teeth
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

An update. I got the finance company to pay for the repair!

 

Was not easy and I had to start the legal process, but in the final hour they agreed to pay up. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done.

 

Great result and what should have happened immediately without any faffin around.

 

Just shows you how the finance companies know what's correct but let and tell the mugs they must pay to keep someone else's car on the road!!

 

 

 

 

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

  • BankFodder changed the title to Auto 100, Nottingham - Car purchased in July - Annual service discovers crack in head - **SETTLED**
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...