Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There's no facility for a settlement "out of court" as such. But matters that are started under the "Single Justice" (SJ) Procedure can often be concluded without the defendant appearing. The SJ procedure, as the name suggests, involves a single magistrate, sitting in an office with a legal advisor, dealing with matters "on papers" only. Nobody else can attend. The SJ deals with straightforward guilty pleas. Anything where the SJ believes the defendant should appear, or which should be dealt with by the "ordinary" court are adjourned o a hearing in the normal magistrates'  court .As well as this, all defendants have the right to a hearing in the normal court if they wish. Nobody is forced to have their case heard under he SJP.  In particular, as far as traffic matters go, a SJ will not disqualify a driver and if a ban is to be considered, the case will be passed over to the normal court. Because, following your SD, you will be pleading Not Guilty (and offering the "deal"), your case would usually be heard in the normal court, meaning a personal appearance. To be honest, performing your SD at the court is a more straightforward way of doing things. It avoids any possible hitches involved in serving he SD on the court. But of course, as I said, most courts have backlogs which mean an SD may not be quickly accommodated. If you do end up doing your SD before a solicitor, check with them the protocol for serving it on the court. Do let us know what the solicitor says about Wednesday.    
    • Welcome to posting on CAG cabot, people will be along soon to help you try to sort this out. Please complete this:  
    • Quotes of the day penny mordaunt came out swinging with her broadsword, and promptly decapitated sunak while Nigel Farage, representing Reform UK, made contentious claims about immigration policies, which were swiftly fact-checked during the debate.   Good question though raised at labour about the 2 child benefit cap, which I broadly agree with, but the tory 'trap' assumes tory thinking - rather than child centric thinking. There should be no incentives to have kids as a financial way of life paid for by everyone else ... ... BUT the kids should not be made to suffer for the decisions of their parents Free school meals would feed the kids, improve their ability to learn, and incentivise them to go to school. As an added benefit ... it would invest in our nations future.   How far this should go is a matter for costing, social intent and future path of the nation, but not feeding our nations kids is an abomination. There should be at least one free school meal per day for every child who attends school. Full Stop. Its the cheapest and most effective investment in our future we could make.
    • Hey people, I've been browsing this amazing forum for the past year and recieved a letter today which has made me require some help. Received a claim form from Cabot in the Civil National Business Centre in regards to an Aqua Credit Card taken out in 2018. I failed to make payments due to financial hardship and have not taken out any credit or uses any forms of credit since. Received a lot of letters from Cabot and their solicitors Mortimer Clarke which I've ignored    By an agreement between New Day Ltd RE Aqua& the Defendant on or around 26/03/2018 ('ths Agreement) New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue Defendant with a credit card. The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice. The Agreement was assigned to the named Claimant. Cabot Credit Management Group Limited, acting as servicing agent of the named Claimant through its Appointed Representative (Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited), has arranged for these proceedings to be issued in the name of the Claimant. The named Claimant may be entitled to claim interest under the Agreement but does not seek such interest and instead claims interest under Section 69(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% p.a.from03/03/2023 until date of issue only, or alternatively such interest as the Court thinks fit THE NAMED CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 1. 3800.82 2. INTEREST OF 379.84 3. Costs How would I go about this and what could happen? I don't remember much details about the card either.
    • cause like you said in post one, 99% of people think these are FINES (it now reads charge). and wet themselves and cough up. they are not, they are speculative invoices because the driver supposedly broke some imaginary contract by driving onto privately owned land which said owner may or may not have signed some 99% fake contract with a private parking co years ago, thats already expired or has not been renewed or annually paid to employ them dx  
  • 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...