Quick Survey on what you think is Satisfactory

[delboytrotter]

Hi all

 

I have a quick survey for you, can you have a look at I MAY HAVE BEEN RIPPED OFF BY CORRIE MOTORS INVERNESS, DONALD MACKENZIE MOTORS AND CAPITAL BANK and via email answer the question at the bottom of the web page.

Cheers for your time.

No Email details will be kept just the YES or NO, if you want a reply you should say so in the email otherwise all no details will be kept.

Thanks Again

[chocolatte]

Some more info on the faults and repairs would be useful before a comment could be made. I would say that point 2 and 3 are excessive but if you were offerred a courtesy car or some sort of reembursement it wouldn't be so bad, but without knowing the answer to these questions I cannot comment.

[Movingon]

Delboy - why don't you post full details here and ask for responses here in the thread? You can add these to the email results later.

[rosiecotton]

I think Del has already done another thread about this particular "problem motor" and it's on it's way to court against the HP company.

[delboytrotter]

I am just trying to gauge if i am write in thinking that this vehicle was below what most reasonalbe people would consider satisfactroy, as Rosie has said it looks like i am going to be going to court as it appears it is possible to also sue the garage as well as the hire purchase company, the solicitor is looking to sue the garage firstly for "goods not being fit for purpose" and then possibly the hP company also, but i was asked the question does a reasonalbe person consider the car to be satisfactory bearing in mind that it has 6 repairs carried out in 169 days and spent 59 days unusable after it costing £6130 and i could only answer for myself that i thought it was most unsatisfactory,

How do you put a poll up, i am going to change the web page to show YES & NO and that is it, if anyone knows how to set up a poll here then please let me know....

[rosiecotton]

Why are you suing the garage? You effectively don't have a contract with them and they won't be liable under the Sale of Goods Act. They sold to the HP company who then sold to you, your contract is with the HP company who are liable under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act as I advised you on the previous post, and as you have been advised by Trading Standards.

 

Is this solicitor you have an expert in consumer civil law? I understand it was a friend of a friend, in which case they may not specialise in this area, and HP can be a minefield if you don't really know what you're doing.

 

If he's suggesting suing the garage primarily under the SoGA (which sounds like the case as he's mentioning fitness for purpose) and the HP company as a second party under Section 75, this is not correct in this case. It is the HP company who is solely liable in law under the Act I mentioned above.

 

You won't be able to pursue the garage under the Sale of Goods Act.

 

I would tend to advise you to stick with the TS advice as they are experts in this area and - with all respect to solicitors among us - unless a solicitor is also a specialist in the area TS are likely to know best.

 

Anyway, regarding the faults - I can't say for sure whether they make the car unsatisfactory. It would seem so based on what you say, but you don't specify what the faults are. Also, I am not a mechanic so would only be speaking as a layman with regard to the faults.

[delboytrotter]

Well i went to see teh friend of a friend and then he put me onto a solicitor with experiance in Civil Law who i have skopen to and outlined my case and he seems to think that regardless of the HP i can sue the garage also for not providing a vehicle that is of satisfactory quality, He thinks this will give a faster response also, i am only going by what he has said so far but i have to go back and see him next thursday for a final this is your best chance conversation...

Also the website was to try and gauge some reasonable idea of what people regarded as satisfactory...it is not fo rthe type fo faults but for the length of time it took to repair etc as i was still paying for it regardless of if i could use it and no compensation has been offered in fact nothing has been offered at all.

[rosiecotton]

Not being funny, but I would advise your solicitor to read the DTI guidance on HP online. I'll find some links for you.

 

As Trading Standards advised you (and for free!), you don't have legal recourse directly against the garage with regard to the quality or fitness for purpose of the car.

 

This is because, effectively, the garage sold the car to the HP company - not you - therefore you don't have a direct contract with them. The HP company then sold the car to you, and they are the ones who have the contract with you and are liable under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act. The garage simply act as a supplier to the HP company here as per diagram below:

 

Garage ----Sells to----> HP Company -----Sells To----> Consumer

 

Each sale forms a separate contract between the two linked parties.

 

The HP company has a contract with the garage and they can take their own independent action to recover any losses incurred in your action against them, but you can't take action directly yourself as there is no contract between you and the garage.

 

Say you bought a Sony TV from Comet and it went wrong. You could not sue Sony under the Sale of Goods Act as you don't have a contract with them. They sold to Comet, who sold to you - and that's where your contract is. It's the same principle.

 

I seriously think you need to speak to Trading Standards again as they are the experts in consumer civil law and what they have said to you previously was correct.

 

If you sue the garage under the Sale of Goods Act for not providing a vehicle of satisfactory quality, it is likely to be thrown out of court as you are pursuing the wrong party under the wrong legislation.

 

You need to sue the HP company alone under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act, and not as a secondary party under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, which also does not apply to HP agreements.

[rosiecotton]

Leaflets from the OFT with relevant info copied:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer_leaflets/credit/oft809.pdf

page 3:

• Your contract is with a finance company (not the retailer) who will own the goods until the final payment is made.

 

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/oft303.pdf

page 2:

When the credit grantor takes on the role of the supplier

When a finance company undertakes to finance the hire purchase or conditional sale facilities a trade offers his customers, the credit or sale agreements are generally between individual customers and the finance company (not the trader). Such an agreement covers both the credit and the supply of the goods. In effect, the trader sells the goods to the finance company which then supplies them to the customer. As supplier as well as credit grantor, the finance company bears responsibility in both capacities.

It is also responsible for what the trader says and does when he negotiates with the customer - as it is when a supplier acts as its agent.

 

From Hampshire TS websiteRegulatory Services - Consumer Advice - Your rights when Buying on Credit

Hire Purchase / Conditional Sales Agreements

 

You do not have equal liability rights when you buy on hire purchase. This type of finance is often used for the purchase of cars. The garage actually sells the vehicle to a finance company who, as the owner, then hires the car to you for an agreed period of time. You usually pay monthly hire instalments and at the end of the agreement you have an option to buy.

However, you will not become the owner until the last payment has been made. You will therefore need to refer any complaints about the vehicle to the finance company not the garage. The same applies if you buy on a conditional sale agreement.

 

 

 

Not a legal website but read the part "Who is responsible when goods are faulty?" as it also explains the same: Car finance quotes for new cars / nearly new cars and vans

The info on this page was written by the Trading Standards Institute

It's repeated here: Trading Standards Central - Trading Standards and Consumer Protection information for the UK and this specifically relates to Scotland.

 

 

There's other stuff too if you Google it.

 

Don't want to throw a spanner in the works here, but I am seriously concerned about the advice you are getting from the solicitor and I urge you to revisit this immediately.

[delboytrotter]

HI Again

 

After looking carefully at my notes this is how i get the just of what the solicitor was saying, (and i may have got it wrong) In the HP agreement it states that if the goods are not satisfactory then i may sue the HP company or the original suppier or both, and i believe this is where he took the idea to sue the garage, nut i could have got him wrong and he may indeed be wanting to sue Capital bank instead. the only real spaaner he threw in was the "not of satisfactory quality" remark and what a reasonable person would "EXPECT" i think i am being reasonable but may be not.....hence the site.

By the way the solicitor does state he is CIVIL & Consumer only

Rosie Thanks for your info you are amazing at these things and i just wish you were in this part of the UK to help me out properly in court, you dont fancy a holiday up in the north of scotland (ha ha)

Cheers

Derek

[rosiecotton]

Afraid not, being in Inverness would mean staying with the in-laws and I'd need paying more than a solicitor for that

 

It's very strange to have that in the HP agreement and is certainly not statute law, I wonder if the dealers know this is there. Obviously I've not seen the paperwork so can't comment on this, I was just a bit concerned that it seemed to go against all statute law. Hopefully the links above will help a bit anyway

[delboytrotter]

There are a few strange things on this agreement, the other strange thing is it states i do not have the right to cancel the agreement under the Consumer credit Act, which i am informed is a unfair so can be ignored.

I am back into the solicitors on Thursday next week so i will get a final idea of what he suggests is best then, and i will post the details for you to check, meanwhile please send as many people over to the survey site as possible so i can get an idea of what is the norm.

I am not asking for Mechanics just reasonable people who in their opinion can answer fairly.

Thanks

 

I MAY HAVE BEEN RIPPED OFF BY CORRIE MOTORS INVERNESS, DONALD MACKENZIE MOTORS AND CAPITAL BANK

[rosiecotton]

After looking carefully at my notes this is how i get the just of what the solicitor was saying, (and i may have got it wrong) In the HP agreement it states that if the goods are not satisfactory then i may sue the HP company or the original suppier or both, and i believe this is where he took the idea to sue the garage, nut i could have got him wrong and he may indeed be wanting to sue Capital bank instead. Derek

 

Of course, just had a thought when revisiting this thread, that in HP agreements the finance company are both the supplier and the finance provider (as stated in the OFT leaflet I linked to above). So by saying the supplier, this is still legally the HP company.

 

Hard to tell without seeing the paperwork myself of course but this is a possible explanation, though it doesn't seem to make much sense and seems to be a bit of a pointless term if that's what it's meaning to convey.

 

Oh and with regard to cancellation, you wouldn't have a "cancellation period" as such unless the finance was signed away from normal business premises, but you would of course be able to voluntary terminate the agreement provided you fulfil the obligations (paying up to 50% of the agreement etc).

[delboytrotter]

HI, I think now it makes sense, as the solicitor was talking about sueing the supplier he may still have been talking about the HP company but from a different point of view, i hope...

I will find out for sure on Thursday when he gives me an idea of exactly what he is going to do and how much it will cost,

Do you know if i am succesful should i be able to recliam all my expenses? as another solicitor told me i would only be able to claim 75%

 

There are a lot of people in agreement with me BTW i think only one person has disagreed with me so far at I MAY HAVE BEEN RIPPED OFF BY CORRIE MOTORS INVERNESS, DONALD MACKENZIE MOTORS AND CAPITAL BANK

I hope this adds something to the impending case.

[rosiecotton]

You won't be able to claim the costs of hiring a solicitor, but you will be able to reclaim your court costs and any expenses you have directly suffered from having to spend the day in court (travel costs etc).

 

This is how it is in England anyway; I'm assuming it's the same in Scottish Sheriff Courts.

[delboytrotter]

As solicitors up here tend to be £150 an hour how much time would you estimate is required to take a case like this to court?

[rosiecotton]

Normally small claims is unrepresented, because of the fact they don't award costs. I would have no idea how many hours of a solicitors' time would be spent on a case should someone choose to use one.

[delboytrotter]

I am unsure if i can use the small or summary claims procedure as i am not just claiming money, i want ht econtract repudaited to be sure they can not come back and do anything else,

If i was to use the summary cause route is it possible to claim back say my £1500 and get the judge to rule on the HP...or am i lost here.

[rosiecotton]

Better off asking local advisers to be honest, I'm not experienced in the Scottish court systems so I wouldn't like to comment.

 

In the English courts I would advise a small claims procedure to reclaim what you have paid under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act, if you were successful there is no way they could ever pursue any more money from you as the judge will have accepted that the car was not of satisfactory quality and the court order will be to repudiate the contract and put both parties back into the position they were in prior to the contract. It would all come together.

 

But you're better off getting this confirmed from someone who knows how the Scots courts work

[delboytrotter]

Thanks, i see how it would work now, i assume that if it is ok to down the Summary cause route i would have to go to court myself but that would ultimately be a cheaper option and if succesful i would recover approx £1500 which would not be to bad as i have only paid then £2500

I know a solicitor would not want to lose money but i will ask his advice on Thursday....

Thanks Again

[delboytrotter]

SOME GOOD NEWS TODAY,

I have been back in to see the solicitor and it looks like not only is he happy to sue Capital Bank as the Supplier and HP Provider but he has managed to get me Civil Legal Assistance also which means up until court action is required it is free and hten if it has to go to court he will apply to the Legal Aid Board in Scotland for a Legal Aid Certificate and if succesful means that he can continue until capital bank lose or i lose, either way once he has that certificate i do not have to pay for costs if i lose.

Capital Bank will not get costs back even if i lose.

All in all the solicitor is happy that he can do something and i am now in the process of sending all the paperwork over to him

Hopefull this will be it sorted.

[rosiecotton]

That sounds like positive news

[helen1973]

Hi i no your post was a while ago but was wondering how it went as i am in sorta same position as you but have court date for january . I just wanted to no what to expect in court.