Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Unfair trading and unnecessary repairs at Motologic Autocentre in Aylesbury


Joanna_B
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 348 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

Hi everyone

 

I'm new to this forum.

 

I joined as I've recently had a bad experience with a local garage car service provider and wanted to get some help and advice before pursuing a case against them.

 

On the 10th of May 2023 I took my car, which is a Vauxhall Corsa into a local repair garage as I had been experiencing engine issues that was causing the vehicle to misfire and stall easily as well as the amber engine light illuminating on the dashboard.

 

I was contacted by one of the mechanics who called me the morning after I took it in explaining to me that they had discovered issues with the car and told me that it would cost £640 to repair. The mechanic did tell me what the issues were, which I've listed below, but as I was woken up from only having 3 hours sleep as I had just come off a 10 hour night shift at work, I may not have taken in exactly what he said but just assumed what ever work they were going to do would rectify the issue.

 

The next morning, I called them to see if my car was ready to collect, which it was but they told me the car was still misfiring and that they would need to do further additional work on it costing me more money than what I had already been billed for.

 

These are the repairs that were carried out:

 

  • Oil and filter change 
  • Supply and fit new rocker gasket, coil pack and spark plug 
  • Supply and fit new tyre
  • Tracking wheel alignment 
  • Parts included: 5W-30 Oil, Oil Filter, Sump Plug, Ignition Coil, Spark Plug, Rocket Gasket & Cover, 14 Rapid tyre

 

The bill for this work carried out came to £640.80, which I was not happy paying for as none of these repairs had anything to do to resolve the issue I had brought the car in for originally. The manager rounded the final cost to £600.00 which wasn't enough and when I drove the car home it was no better than how it was before. All of these repairs were a complete waste of time and money and the car is going to be scrapped now anyway as it is too costly to fix the engine issue.

 

Where do I stand with this and do I have a case to accuse them of unfair trading and carrying out unnecessary repairs to my car?

 

I have already reported this case to Citizens Advice and they've passed it on to Trading Standards who may or may not take up the case but if they don't, then what other options am I left with to get my money back?

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Many thanks

 

Joanna

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any reason why you haven't told us the name of the garage?

It certainly seems that the list of work which were carried out have nothing to do with any engine problem.

You seem to be saying that you consented to this work being carried out because you were very sleepy and did not understand at the time exactly the significance.
I'm afraid that this is not sufficient justification for objecting to that work.

However, if you brought the car in to have a specific issue dealt with, then their failure to deal with that issue and to implement other matters could be the basis of the claim.

Have you got anything in writing about the reasons for which you originally took the car into the garage?

You say that the engine issue is too costly to fix. How do you know this? What is the engine issue and have you had any other garage look at it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BankFodder

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Is there any reason why you haven't told us the name of the garage?

I wanted to keep the name of the garage private at first incase this comes back to them but no, I will name and shame them. It's Motologic Autocentre in Aylesbury.

WWW.MOTO-LOGIC.CO.UK

MOT's as low as £30 - FREE retests. Tyres guaranteed best prices in Aylesbury. We pay difference plus £5 per tyre back if found cheaper in 7 days!

 

However, if you brought the car in to have a specific issue dealt with, then their failure to deal with that issue and to implement other matters could be the basis of the claim.

This is why I think I have a case, because I told them the engine was misfiring, stalling and the engine light coming on and yet they fixed the tracking, replaced a tyre and spark plugs yet not fixing what I asked them to fix.

 

Have you got anything in writing about the reasons for which you originally took the car into the garage?

No, it was all verbally discussed and agreed with over the phone. All I have as proof is the invoice.

 

You say that the engine issue is too costly to fix. How do you know this? What is the engine issue and have you had any other garage look at it?

Because the garage said, that they would need to do a cylinder pressure test which would be £500 labour plus any new parts for the engine which they said could cost over a thousand pounds when finished. I even spoke to the garage where I took it to previously, and they told me it's not worth throwing anymore money at it for a car of it's age and advised to get a new car or replace the engine. The reason, I didn't go back to the previous garage was because they are not local to me anymore and I would of had to catch a bus home when dropping the car off, so I took it to a different garage that was local to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to Unfair trading and unnecessary repairs at Motologic Autocentre in Aylesbury

You say that the only proof you have is the invoice – what does the invoice say?

I think if you are going to proceed with this then you are going to need some kind of independent diagnostic test at a different garage.

I think it would also be worth getting a quote for the work because I can't imagine that a cylinder pressure test would really cost £500.

 

What is the value of the car?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For context, a 'cylinder pressure test', more commonly known as a 'compression test', involves removing each spark plug one by one, screwing in a pressure gauge in its place and cranking the engine over on the starter until the pressure reading stabilises. Rinse and repeat for each cylinder. 

 

The labour to do this would vary based on the number of cylinders and the ease of access to the spark plugs, but I cannot believe it would be anywhere near £500. You could complete this test on a 3 or 4 cylinder Vauxhall Corsa engine in about 20 minutes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...