MITSUBISHI dealership gone into liquidation, taken our money with them!

texranger

gems2381 wrote: »

The cash wasn't asked for by the dealership, this was the what we were told to do to get the car off the administrators (when we thought it was in administration).

who told you this as the only people that would tell you what it would cost to get it back would be the administrator or in this case BHF.

if it was the salesman or someone at the dealership then it was the dealership who were asking for this as i suppose you were to pay this to someone at the dealership that they say they would pass to the administrator

gems2381

texranger it was the people who were brought in after all staff had been made redundant, nothing to do with the dealership. They said if we came in and spoke to the administrator with all our paperwork and the remaining payment on the car then they'd let us have it. But as it had gone into liquidation this was not possible.

Hermione_Granger

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Is your "o" button stuck?

Where did I say it was a legal duty?

Here we go again with more Olympic backpeddling from Flyboy. (shame it's not in the 2012 olympics, as the UK would be guaranteed at least one gold medal).
What you stated was:

Mitisubishi, as the franchisor, have a duty of care towards the customers of the franchisee. That includes the regulation of the franchisee's business.

And "Duty of care" is a legal term usually used in English law.
You also clearly stated that the franchisor must regulate the franchisee, and this is rubbish.

Making a mistake in a post is fine. We all do it occasionally.
Refusing to admit it and constantly attempting to change what was originally stated does you no favours, and despite this being pointed out to you on many previous threads, you don't seem to have learnt from it.

texranger

gems2381 wrote: »

texranger it was the people who were brought in after all staff had been made redundant, nothing to do with the dealership. They said if we came in and spoke to the administrator with all our paperwork and the remaining payment on the car then they'd let us have it. But as it had gone into liquidation this was not possible.

normally you have to place anything in writing to administrators as their job is to colate everything before they decide what can be saved and what cant. if the dealership has not paid Mitisubishi for the vehicle stock then no matter what deposit or money you have for a car, it is not yours it still belongs to Mitisubishi, just becuase you have sales paperwork and a deposit reciept does not mean you have the rights to the vehicle. an administrator would have to be in contact with Mitisubishi to see what vehicles have been paid for by the dealership and if they have been paid for then you may get the vehicle, but 9/10 these vehicles would be sent to auction to be sold off to pay any debts, but in this case the assets were ceased by BHF (Lloyds TSB) so these would have been sent to auction so BHF could get some of their money back.

shaun_from_Africa

And "Duty of care" is a legal term usually used in English law

It's more than a term "usually used".
"Duty of care" is a term found in UK civil law and it means that one person or company has a legal responsibility towards another, so yes Flyboy, your earlier post in which you said that Mitsubish had a duty of care to the franchisee was saying that they had a legal duty.

wealdroam

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It's more than a term "usually used".
"Duty of care" is a term found in UK civil law and it means that one person or company has a legal responsibility towards another, so yes Flyboy, your earlier post in which you said that Mitsubish had a duty of care to the franchisee was saying that they had a legal duty.

Actually, Flyboy said that Mitsubishi had a duty of care to the franchisee's customers.

Even more incredible.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Mitisubishi, as the franchisor, have a duty of care towards the customers of the franchisee. That includes the regulation of the franchisee's business.

thenudeone

roddydogs wrote: »

The reason most people dont use CC for a car is that the Dealer usually wants 2% to do so.

Yes. So if you pay £1 on credit card it costs just 2p extra

Which would have possibly saved £8000.

Are you suggesting that that protection wouldn't be worth 2p?