Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • £85PCM to sky, what!! why are you paying so much, what did you watch on sky thats not on freeview?  
    • Between yourself and Dave you have produced a very good WS. However if you were to do a harder hitting WS it may be that VCS would be more likely to cancel prior to a hearing. The Contract . VCS [Jake Burgess?] are trying to conflate parking in a car park to driving along a road in order to defend the indefensible. It is well known that "NO Stopping " cannot form a contract as it is prohibitory. VCS know that well as they lose time and again in Court when claiming it is contractual. By mixing up parking with driving they hope to deflect from the fact trying to claim that No Stopping is contractual is tantamount to perjury. No wonder mr Burgess doesn't want to appear in Court. Conflation also disguises the fact that while parking in a car park for a period of time can be interpreted as the acceptance of the contract that is not the case while driving down a road. The Defendant was going to the airport so it is ludicrous to suggest that driving by a No Stopping  sign is tacitly accepting  the  contract -especially as no contract is even being offered. And even if a motorist did not wish to be bound by the so called contract what could they do? Forfeit their flight and still have to stop their car to turn around? Put like that the whole scenario posed by Mr Burgess that the Defendant accepted the contract by driving past the sign is absolutely absurd and indefensible. I certainly would not want to appear in Court defending that statement either. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will do the contract itself later.
    • Yes - ignore. Because of another MET victim today I looked at all our MET cases back to June 2014 ... yes, 10 years. They have never dared take a motorist to court and argue their case before a judge.  They have started the odd court case, but as a means of trying to intimidate the motorist into coughing up, when the motorist defended and refused to give in it was MET who bottled it and discontinued.
    • Unpaid wages should be pretty straightforward if you did the work. Don't be intimidated. You need only show you were due money, and did not get money.   The risk is that they have no money to pay you (and legal fees) - frankly a solicitor maybe be costing them more than your claim is for and I might have expected them to make a commercial decision to settle before this point regardless of the merits of the case.
    • Thanks so much FTMDave.  This is so much better   I'm still tempted to leave the blue section in is as if I lose it will at least save me a little bit of money.  But I get your point that it's pretty superfluous.   Thinking I'll get this in the post on Monday unless you think it's worth delaying?   
  • 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

Brownhills of Newark - Motorhome "Damaged during Service" Quoted 3 weeks for repair. Actually took 19 weeks. How to get compensation?


Recommended Posts

Last September our 2019 plate Motorhome went to Brownhills of Newark for its annual habitation check/service.

Whilst on their site for the day one of their drivers managed to drive it into a lamp post and put a 2m long scratch down the side of the body. They didn't own up to the damage, but luckily we noticed it before leaving the site, at which point the admitted fault and said they would fix it in house rather than go through the insurance.

As they are an authorised Motor home repairer etc we agreed to this and a time frame of 3 weeks was given for the repair, which was booked in for late November. It could not be booked in sooner for the repair as we had a weekends away etc booked with the vehicle until mid November. 

3 weeks, and a simple re-spray has now evolved to 18 weeks of them having the vehicle, due to the spray job having to be done 3 times, a window seal not been re-fitted correctly, leading to rain water pouring into the van and the replacement decals been applied wrong twice & having to be re-ordered from Elddis who originally built the camper. We finally got the vehicle back in late April, still minus 1 of the decals.

Back in March we had an email from Brownhills asking what compensation we would accept due to the delays in returning the vehicle to us (They have had it for 18 weeks instead of the initial 3 weeks which was agreed).

Once we finally got the vehicle back we told them what we expected (the value that the camper has depreciated by in the extra 15 weeks they have had it and which time we were unable to use it). They are now refusing to honour any compensation and are only offering us a free service for when this is due in September.

Legally where do we stand? 

Obviously we are not taking it back to them for a service, given that last time they managed to crash it and its taken so long for them to make such a simple repair.

We are considering legal action, but are not really sure under what grounds/legislation we could claim.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Brownhills of Newark - Motorhome "Damaged during Service" Quoted 3 weeks for repair. Actually took 19 weeks. How to get compensation?

What was your estimate of the depreciation in value?

Frankly it is such a vague measure of your loss then I think that it was a mistake for you to suggest that.

What is the value of a free service?

What did you actually lose by not having it with you at the time? Where do you normally keep it?

Do you think it is now fully repaired or are there some outstanding issues? Have you used it or parked it up in the rain?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We asked £1900 for the compensation. 

The value of the vehicle is approx £55000

The free service is worth £900 according to Brownhills, but I can get it done locally for £300 and that doesn't involve a full day out to Newark.

The vehicle still is not fully repaired, as it is still missing some of the decals. Apparently these are on back order from Elddis.

By not having the vehicle for 15 weeks longer than expected we were unable to use it to go away, or plan any trips abroad as we didnt know when it would be coming back to us.

It is normally kept on our driveway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I don't think that the measure of depreciation is going to be helpful to you. I think you need to establish actual losses – money wasted on failed bookings et cetera. Holiday time taken off work and then not able to be exploited. That kind of thing.

You can certainly bring a small claim against them. Have you got in writing from them that the free service is worth £900?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And how do you arrive at £1900 as the depreciation loss?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Its based on 10% annual depreciation, divided by 52 weeks and then x the excess number of weeks that they have had the vehicle for, after the agreed initial 3 week repair.

Edited by miley_b ob
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Very scientific – but I think you have zero chance of getting if you take it to court.

I think you will have to show actual loss and the court will think that you are trying to make a money grab.

There could be a chance if you play very carefully to get 900 quid instead of the service – but that would be the maximum.

If you bring a County Court action then I'm certain that you will win but the entire dispute will have done to a question of how much you are entitled to receive by way of compensation.

It's up to you. If you want to sue for £1900 then we will help you. However, you have to pay a claim fee based on the £1900 claim and then hearing fee based on the same amount if you go to trial.

If I am right that you are awarded less then any costs you might be awarded will be based on the amount wanted to you – and not the value of your claim.

I think you should be a bit more careful and realistic about what you want to claim – but it's up to you.

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...