Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • 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.
  • 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

R&W cars, Peterborough. - faulty vehicle after only 20 miles - won't accept rejection


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 296 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 guys,

my partner purchased a used vehicle from a small independent garage. Within 20 miles of the drive home, the vehicle had numerous warning lights appear. Immediately contacted the garage who stated it was the battery. 
 

Battery was replaced and the lights returned, more lights than before.

car was taken back to the garage, faults were wiped etc. and coincidentally returned when my partner received the car. 
 

it has now gone back to them for a second time to be repaired, which has taken 2 roughly 2 weeks so far (it is now just over 30 days since initial purchase).

as the vehicle is still not repaired and seems to be an ongoing fault, my partner requested a refund for the vehicle. 
 

they have rejected the refund with The following unprofessional response: 

do appreciate your frustration and I do appreciate the time it is taking for the repair, this is due to waiting times on parts to be delivered. 
 
Unfortunately due to consumer rights act you have the right to reject within the first 30 days when either the repairs fail - which they haven’t these are new faults and new issues arising on the car, or if you chose the rejection straight of the bat, in this instance you have agreed to the repairs, you have taken our courtesy car and now you want to reject unfortunately we cannot accept that rejection. 
 
The initial issue was your battery, your battery hasn’t failed, then your brought the car in because you hadn’t cleared the faults after you replaced the battery which we did, it just so happens that now a sensor has failed in the car which is a new fault not a failed repair. 
 
Mazda's in general are notorious for their sensors failing, and it just so happens you have now had 2 brand new main dealer parts put in the vehicle which means your car is now 100% fit for purpose. You have bought a 2nd hand used car, not a brand new car unfortunately things can fail and the car will need to be repaired, at least these things failed while you are still in warranty and not 6 months down the line where you would have had to pay the £400+ for the repairs out of your own pocket.”
 
where do we stand?
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Within 20 miles of the drive home, the vehicle had numerous warning lights appear. - Where do I stand?
14 minutes ago, Nathd91 said:

at least these things failed while you are still in warranty and not 6 months down the line where you would have had to pay the £400+ for the repairs out of your own pocket.”

like everything they have said 

total absolute RUBBISH.

warranties are not worth the paper they are written on and do not REMOVE. REPLACE or WEAKEN your rights under various Consumer laws.

its immaterial the 'faults' appeared outside of 30days, you reported the car faulty within that time, - they should not have SOLD YOU THE CAR with those faults anyway. 

and you have NOT by default accepted a repair. - that didnt work!! :frusty: only allowed ONE repair anyway.. then..

you can reject the car 1000%

name and shame

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

Have you send them a written note of your rejection?

Link to post
Share on other sites

WWW.CARDEALERREVIEWS.CO.UK

Read 14 customer reviews for R & W Cars in Peterborough, sellers of new and used cars, with an average rating of 2.5/5 stars. Read more or write a...

 

 

How did you pay? Do you pay by cash or bank transfer or did you obtain a loan or pay by credit card et cetera?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By bank transfer - They were not willing to allow debit or credit card, I’m guessing they don’t allow credit card otherwise they would have to dispute with the credit card company for the faulty car! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read our used car guide and see what we have to say about paying by bank transfer and about how you should walk away when a dealer insists on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can you tell something about the car, make model mileage et cetera. Also, you haven't told us how much you paid.

Did it come with a new MOT or a very recent MOT?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to R&W cars, Peterborough. - 40 vehicle after only 20 miles. Dealer won't accept rejection

I did ask how much you paid and you haven't addressed this question.

Who issued the MOT? Was it by the dealer or somebody very close? Please name them here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay thanks.

A slight difficulty here is that if you have to claim form them and you want the full value then you will exceed the small claims court £10,000 limit.

This means if you lost the case – which is almost impossible on the basis of what you say, you would have to pay the other side's costs including legal representation if they got a solicitor.
If you are suing for less than £10,000 then even if you lost you would have to pay very little indeed. You would probably only be saddled with your own costs Which might be about 800 quid.

I think it is very important to keep your claim down to less than £10,000 and the only way I can see to manage this is to keep the car, have it repaired by someone else – a reputable repairer and then sue for the cost of repairs.

Do you like the car well enough to want to keep it? Assuming it was all properly repaired?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And not only for your benefit – but for the benefit of anybody else who comes here, by agreeing to pay by bank transfer you gave away a huge number of rights which would have made things much easier.
This was a very costly error for you. It you had used a car loan or a credit card payment – even if you had the cash and repaid the credit card straightaway then you could have held the finance company or the credit card issuer responsible and you wouldn't have had to deal with these cowboys who were just trying to rip you off.

You seem to be saying that you were already aware of this forum. It's a shame that you didn't read around and do some research before you started spending this kind of money. We cover a wide range of subjects and we give lots of advice and it's all free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to R&W cars, Peterborough. - faulty vehicle after only 20 miles - won't accept rejection

just type no need to keep hitting quote....

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

UPDATE -

well finally they agreed to offer a refund, the V5 and keys have been dropped of to them. 
 

the car was paid for by bank transfer, however they state it takes 14 days for a refund which seems To be a bit of a joke as no finance was used etc. 

 

what makes it worse, is the car is back on the website for sale, so I am waiting for a refund for my car which is now being advertised on their website. 
 

Is this legal? 
 

Embarrassment of a company too, manager wouldn’t even come and speak to me when I returned the keys and V5!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like a good result so a tentative well done.

However, they have the car and they have your money.

Let ask know when you get paid.

Have you got pictures of the car with registration number et cetera? Maybe you would like to post them up here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, they were adamant the faults were new and differed from The original issue. They weren’t very smart with their response and seemed to completely contradict their own answers - which led to them giving up the fight! 
 

I just wasn’t sure if they can legally advertise the car for sale whilst the V5 is still in my ownership (if they haven’t already transferred it to trade) and whilst they haven’t paid me for the vehicle! 
 

the car in question: 

WWW.RANDWCARS.CO.UK

2016 Mazda Cx-5 D Sport Nav, Manual, In White. PARKING SENSORS - FRONT/REAR.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you don't get paid then you should log it as a stolen car

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...