Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Son privately sold car, private buyer has raised court claim citing failures under the Consumer Rights Act & that my son received a Fraudulent MOT certificate!!

Recommended Posts

What is your son's full-time occupation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, he needs to say in the defence that he is unemployed and on universal credit and he sold a car.

Can you tell us how long he owned the car and was he the registered keeper? Did he drive it at all?

They are suggesting that the MOT was obtained fraudulently. You will need to tell them to prove it because this is a very serious accusation.

If I were you I would go to the MOT station and tell them what is being said about them.

Also, in their claim, they say that upon closer inspection they found that the tyres were cracked.
This suggests that they did inspect any inspection they carried out wasn't done properly but that should be their responsibility. Do you agree that the tyres were cracked? Have they provided any photographic evidence?


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you accessed the defence form online or have you received it in paper form?
Is your son not going to be involved in this at all?
If this goes to court then your son is the person who will have to appear. Maybe your son needs to start getting engaged and taking a bit of responsibility for what is happening

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that if this goes to court, your son will have to be there and will have to deal with the paperwork. It might actually be empowering for your son who has suffered the disadvantage of dyslexia throughout his life to be able to take control and to look at the result with some pride.

First of all I should say to you that my view of your son's status as a seller of the vehicle differs from that of my site team colleagues above.
He bought the vehicle expressly to make a profit from it and although there is probably a thin line, I would say that he falls under the definition of a trader for the purposes of this transaction.
This might be surprising – but I'm afraid that that seems to be the law and if the purchase of this vehicle realises that your son was only a short-term owner of the vehicle and did by expressly for the purposes of reselling it and making a profit, then your purchaser may well then start to rely on their rights under the consumer rights act – and I think that there is a fair chance that a judge would find against your son.

Luckily for you, the claimant seems to have no idea what they are doing – and in particular they have made a very wild allegation about the possibility of a fraudulent MOT without any supporting evidence.

I think that you should litter have your draft defence before you send it off. I suspect that time is running out so you had better do this quickly.

I certainly wouldn't defend on the basis that it was a private sale. I don't think it was and if the claimant has any evidence that it was a vehicle bought specifically for resale then I think that the judge would immediately find against you and all of the allegations of fraud et cetera would fall to one side.

I think I would keep quiet on that basis and I would simply say that the MOT was obtained perfectly correctly from a reputable garage. That the allegation of a fraudulent MOT is extremely serious and that you require that the claimant should produce evidence of this in court.
Can you tell us anything about the cracked tyres?
Have you spoken to the MOT station?

Also I'd like to know about the hole in the engine block. If there is a hole then as has already been pointed out, this would produce a fairly obvious leakage of oil.
I think in a defence I would say that you believe that a hole in the engine block would lead to a fairly catastrophic emptying of the oil onto the ground and render the vehicle quite a driveable. Despite this, the purchaser drove it away and there was no oil around when the vehicle was inspected.
You require have evidence of the hole but your position at the moment is that the hole occurred after the vehicle was driven away and was not present at the point of sale.

If you make these points – but keep well away from the issue of whether or not it was a private sale then you stand a chance.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...