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

Facebook Motor Trader (sold 138 cars there) & a Motor Trader & MOT cente - NWH Auto Engineers/MPH Remapping & DPF Centre. - sold me a PUP


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 110 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 in advance for stopping, reading and hopefully advising on my post.

Back in September I purchased a newer vehicle which I use when I go overlanding/Camping/Hiking. 

It was a fair distance away and I called the seller, who at the time didn't explain he was a trader, but he did have his own garage/MOT station. 

He was very helpful, answering all my questions and showing me around the vehicle via video.  After lots of questions I decided to buy the vehicle.

Since September there have been a few issues, with some most serious issues coming to light in December, mainly that someone had covered over the ABS, Traction Control and Airbag warning lights behind the dash with PTFE tape.  None of the safety systems were operating!

The person who sold the vehicle was also the person who actually MOT'd the vehicle, yes, the actual tester. 

I've spent just under 3k having a new steering rack, rear brake lines, ABS system repairs and new seatbelt due to the airbag issue and I'd like to claim at least some of this cost back.

My main question is this. 

I only have the sellers work address of his garage. 

He doesn't appear on the voters roll and neither does his wife. 

Can I make a claim against him at his work address? 

What advice would you give if this isn't the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sadly he appears to be a sole trader. 

I've searched his name for Directorships.

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed - just type!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please will you tell us the name of the business and the name of the individuals involved in the address that you have.

You been here since 2021 so you know about us and it is a shame that you didn't come here a lot earlier.

Have you taken it up with him at all and what has he said?

Please tell us about the vehicle – vehicle type and model, age, mileage, price paid.

You have to understand that we need as much information as possible in order to advise you.

I think you need to get an independent inspection of the vehicle and in particular you need to get an opinion as to whether the things that were wrong were in fact probably present at the time you bought it and certainly at the time that it was MOT'd.

And although you won't like it very much – I suggest that you look at our used car guide – in particular the video that we have about how to protect yourself when buying used cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you for coming back to me. 

I haven't been able to jump on this sooner as the issues have been significant and have taken time to get to the bottom of.  I have taken this up with the seller back in October and then December.

With regards to your questions

the vehicle is a Mitsubishi L200 2010 and I paid £4700. 

This is a second car and I cannot justify having a newer truck sat on my drive as well as my car. 

I'm afraid I'm a little concerned about listing the person's details on here for all to see, but happy to message them if the details are required. 

The seller is based in Lytham St Annes and runs a garage there as well as being the MOT tester who passed the vehicle. 

The Garage is called NWH Auto Engineers/MPH Remapping & DPF Centre. 

The seller sold it as a private sale, not through the garage, hence me asking about home address. 

I have since gone through all of his facebook and found him to have sold 138 cars over the last year.

As the vehicle was going through repairs, everything was listed, photographed and videos taken where required.  The garage carrying out the work completed a full inspection for me and they are also an MOT Centre.

If you require any further information then please do let me know.  

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed - just type!
Link to post
Share on other sites

What you describe as the sequence of events makes it even more bewildering but you didn't come to us much earlier.

Are suggest that you take it for an independent MOT and an independent inspection as quickly as possible and then we can move forward.

You will need to get evidence together and there is no time to be lost. You've wasted enough time already.

Did you follow the used car link?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm sorry if I might sound wrong here, but there is absolutely no point in the vehicle going in for an independent MOT now that the faults have all been rectified. 

I hope that with all of the photos, videos and reports that I have plenty of evidence to make a claim. 

I simply want to find out if I can claim against the seller at his work premises. 

I have compiled my Court bundle and would like to move forward.

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed - just type!
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to County Court Claim against Motor Trader
  • dx100uk changed the title to Facebook Motor Trader (sold 138 cars there) & a Motor Trader & MOT cente - NWH Auto Engineers/MPH Remapping & DPF Centre. - sold me a PUP - Court Claim Issued

thread title updated.

who have you listed as the defendant in your court claim? him as a person at this home ad? or listed it as T/A NWH Auto Engineers/MPH Remapping & DPF Centre. ? which you should have done

you would be quite OK to list his business as them, as its obvious from FB that he trades in cars and it would not be deemed a private sale. i also wonder where the tax man sits on this too.

the fact he is an MOT centre and passed this car when the dash warning lights were blanked out is very bad for him.

what are you claiming? the full cost of all the repairs you've had done?

have you got a copy of his MOT cert?

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

36 minutes ago, Boobydo said:

I'm sorry if I might sound wrong here, but there is absolutely no point in the vehicle going in for an independent MOT now that the faults have all been rectified.  I hope that with all of the photos, videos and reports that I have plenty of evidence to make a claim.  I simply want to find out if I can claim against the seller at his work premises.  I have compiled my Court bundle and would like to move forward.

Yes of course you can make a court claim. Why not?

The bizarre thing here is that is normally the wrongdoer who covers up with evidence. In your case it seems that you, the victim, have covered up all the evidence.

If you want us to help you then we can but we will ask you information and if you don't provide it to us then there won't be much we can do.

The only thing I would point out so far is that you have decided to go it alone so far….

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate your help and advice, although I don’t actually feel very welcomed by you.

Thanks for responding in the first place, but it appears I may have caught you on a bad day.

I haven’t yet submitted my claim, it’s sat in draft format.  

Thank you so much for letting me know that I can address it in the way you describe.

the vehicle also required a new steering rack.

 I think I’d be fair in claiming half of that cost as it’s due to wear and tear and the full cost of labour and parts for everything to do with the ABS, Airbag system and traction control.  Plus of course, the court fee.

i do have a copy of the MOT cert 😊

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all.

We do our best to help people who have managed to get themselves into problems and we have to think not only of the people who are asking us for help but also the other people who visit this forum for information and also to find out how best to look after themselves.

You bought a car from a trader. It obviously had lots of problems but instead of starting to deal with the trader and maybe asking for our help, you put your hands in your pocket and started paying for the repairs yourself.

Now you want to go back and claim the money back from the trader but as I understand it, you may not have approached the trader so we don't know what his reaction is. I asked you about this but you haven't addressed the question.

You are trying to be fair with the trader and trying to claim only half back but of course we are dealing with a man who apparently is representing himself as a private seller that you have discovered that in fact he trades vehicles and he has sold at least 138 of them.


Do you really expect this person to act fairly towards you? I shall be very pleased if he does – but don't hold your breath.

One of the things that you should realise is that maybe getting a judgement against the person is going to be straightforward but enforcing it might be a completely different matter. This is one of the reasons I want to know who the person is that you are dealing with. You say that you don't have any kind of personal address. Is the garage well established?

You say that you have got a draft claim form. Why don't you start off by showing it to us.

You say that you bought the vehicle from a person some distance away from you. How far away? Where was it advertised? What did the advertisement claim?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

just type there is no need to keep hitting quote

makes a topic twice as long and hard to find replies on tiny phone screens etc.

 

  • I agree 1

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Facebook Motor Trader (sold 138 cars there) & a Motor Trader & MOT cente - NWH Auto Engineers/MPH Remapping & DPF Centre. - sold me a PUP

Also, who fitted the steering rack and how long ago?

Did they form a diagnosis of the condition of the original steering rack? Did they form an opinion that in fact the steering rack had been in poor condition and shouldn't have got it's MOT? These are the kinds of things that an inspection might produce for you.

I think you're being far too generous only claiming half. You may as well claim it all if you're going to claim. Then if you really feel generous enough to want to negotiate, you can step back from the full amount to the half amount.

There are lots of ways to deal with this that you will need to tell us a lot more

Link to post
Share on other sites

and have you even sent a letter of claim yet and WHO TOO....:noidea:

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...