Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • reading the order is quite difficult for me. this is a letter (names and addresses taken out) that i sent in which is what i assumed i needed too.   court.pdf
    • Thanks for the message jk2054   I have just been drafting what I want to say and I think its best to focus purely on the supremacy of contract. The reason being that I dont want the judge to start focusing on other parts of my witness statement when surely just the supremacy of contract section alone should be enough to get this dismissed.    The crux of my defense revolves around the principle of Supremacy of Contract. When I purchased my flat in December 2016, the contract explicitly included ownership of parking spot 112, as delineated in the lease documentation provided in Exhibit 1. This documentation unequivocally establishes my right to use and occupy this parking space. Furthermore, the subsequent exhibits, particularly Exhibit 3, clearly depict the marked boundaries of parking spot 112, corroborating my ownership as stated in the lease agreement. Additionally, the official register of title, presented in Exhibit 4, reinforces this ownership claim. Moreover, I draw the court's attention to relevant legal precedents, such as Pace v Mr N and Link Parking v Ms P, which demonstrate that parking companies cannot override a tenant's right to park on designated property. These cases serve as persuasive authorities supporting my argument regarding the Supremacy of Contract in residential parking disputes. It is my contention that the absence of any contractual obligation to display a permit for parking spot 112 absolves me of any liability in this matter. The claimant's failure to acknowledge my ownership rights in their witness statement further underscores the weakness of their case.
    • I agree with you LFI, a totally wrong decision, I may be wrong but IMO who was driving is irrelevant .... So what if he declared himself as the driver within 28 days? .... I may be wrong but it's my understanding that that just makes him liable for the charge as driver. The fact is, the driver, declared or not, only made the error of entering the wrong vehicle registration number .... The parking was paid for. I think it more likely the judge dismissed because he didn't appeal to the PPC and tell them about the error and confirm he paid giving the chance of rectifying the situation before it got to court. But we can only know if Dave962 clarifies. Pollux, is that a fish like Cod? 😁
    • and more .. As thames water pushes to further rip off captive customers, not get fined for it, and allow more dividends .. for little more than 'aspirations' to do better More detail comes out of the literally and figuratively sh** companies apparently shunting money out of the regulated business to profit/bonus/dividend generating unregulated side companies   "Accounts filed at Companies House show : (Kennets) accounts, filed more than 12 months after the end of Kennet’s financial year, showed that the company made a £1.15m pre-tax profit for the year to 31 March 2023, up from £374,000 a year earlier. Revenues rose to £1.6m in 2023 – up from £1m in "Kennet Properties paid out a £14.5m dividend in the year to 31 March 2023" "Kennet ?takes on? land no longer needed by Britain’s biggest water company before developing it and selling it on, typically for housing or commercial premises. It also received income for the use of sewer networks by third parties for fibre-optic cabling."   Thames Water could raise bills to £627 a year to help fix leaks | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Embattled water supplier promises to invest up to £3bn more over the next five years     Thames Water-linked firm paid £14m in dividends despite concerns over group | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Kennet Properties sells off Thames Water land, whose owner, Kemble Water, has warned it would not be able to pay a £190m loan  
    • I think it will make more sense if you read that the Judge meant the 28 day sentence was on the PCN not the sign. He lost because in the Judge's opinion the registered keeper has the option to declare who was driving on the day. Dave didn't do that so he takes the blame for not making the declaration. A totally wrong decision which can be challenged at a price. There is no guarantee that another Judge will want to say that the original judgement was majorly wrong so may not change it. On the other hand another Judge may say the decision was an absolute load of pollux and reverse the decision and add punitive additions on to TPS for bringing such a hopeless case to Court.  That's why we call it Judge Lottery. To be fair, Judges tend to get it right more often than not. Doesn't make things any easier for Dave.
  • 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 291 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


Start your own new thread

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



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


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


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....




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...


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: 


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...