Can I Chase this legally If So How?

Silk

steve-L wrote: »

If you are lucky then that will do the trick.... if not wait for the letter to come or not and then send the Final Letter Before Action

Theres no need to send two LBA's, one will suffice.

Starting to go into written negotiations without stating intentions of going to court is just delaying matters by starting a chain of responses.

Providing a summary of the facts and situation is given in the letter along with request for resolution which the trader can address thats all thats needed.

steve-L

Silk wrote: »

Theres no need to send two LBA's, one will suffice.

Starting to go into written negotiations without stating intentions of going to court is just delaying matters by starting a chain of responses.

Providing a summary of the facts and situation is given in the letter along with request for resolution which the trader can address thats all thats needed.

Probably not but I was advised to do this both by trading standards and my cousin/solicitor.
Reason being it proves you are trying to minimise costs and seek an alternative solution and that is the whole point of the small claims track.....

So its not a necessity .... but it's surprising having ended up in SC track just how much the magistrates OPINION is the most important thing!

Strider590

colino wrote: »

Unfortunately leaks are a hazard with convertibles in this country, surprising as we buy so many of them,

It's true, I don't know why people buy them and expect them to be 100% water proof.

FreddieM

Strider590 wrote: »

It's true, I don't know why people buy them and expect them to be 100% water proof.

I guess its because you expect a product to do what it says on the tin......... You wouldn't buy a house knowingly if it leaked
.... And they do!!!

mattyprice4004

You chose to buy it from someone far away - they didn't seek you out and force you to buy the car.

IMO what they've offered is reasonable, and you'll get nothing from taking it to court.

How is it their fault if you bought it at a daft distance? That was your choice.

Silk

steve-L wrote: »

Probably not but I was advised to do this both by trading standards and my cousin/solicitor.
Reason being it proves you are trying to minimise costs and seek an alternative solution and that is the whole point of the small claims track.....

So its not a necessity .... but it's surprising having ended up in SC track just how much the magistrates OPINION is the most important thing!

Firstly if the fault was disputed or down to opinion then a paper trail would be advised.
However that is not disputed as a repair has previously been attempted and the need for further repair agreed.

steve-L wrote: »

So its not a necessity .... but it's surprising having ended up in SC track just how much the magistrates OPINION is the most important thing!

The Magistrates opinion won't realy come into it that much as they will be fully aware of the legal obligations of the trader to repair the fault within reasonable time, minimum inconvenience and without additional cost. If the Magistrate didn't know what was required by Law then I'm sure the Clerk will be able to advise.
Should the OP try to seek damages then perhaps "opinion" might enter into it but at the moment that's not required.

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

You chose to buy it from someone far away - they didn't seek you out and force you to buy the car.

IMO what they've offered is reasonable, and you'll get nothing from taking it to court.

How is it their fault if you bought it at a daft distance? That was your choice.

To be fair these days distance is a poor defence .... The OP has the same rights if they lived next door or 200 miles away.

To have to submit to a week without a car or they will only pay half the bill is more like blackmail and not "reasonable"

steve-L

Silk wrote: »

The Magistrates opinion won't realy come into it that much as they will be fully aware of the legal obligations of the trader to repair the fault within reasonable time, minimum inconvenience and without additional cost.

But what is repair on a 2007 leaky cabrio roof.... you don't expect them to be completely water tight.... equally, rain shouldn't pour in....

Again 'reasonable time' open to the magistrate....
Additional costs are the responsibility of both parties. As said they chose to buy 200 miles away and the garage has showed some (probably not enough willing)... if they are going to try and get costs in terms of fuel then they might be better with some paper-trail to back it up???

The garage asked us to get the car assessed at al local garage that we are happy with as we are 70 miles away from the garage. The quote we have is £614.00 We advise Luton of this and they said they would deal with it. We have spoken more than a dozen times to the garage (Luton Car Trade Centre) sincewho after loads of excuses why they haven't called gave us two options. Take it back to them for a week to get it repaired at their own garage.

Do they have the 'get a quote from a local garage' on record in writing?

"who after loads of excuses why they haven't called gave us two options. Take it back to them for a week to get it repaired at their own garage. " sounds like 1 option?

Isn't the issue loss of car for a week? (and fuel) so they effectively want a hire car paid, courtesy car or pay a local garage?

Silk

steve-L wrote: »

But what is repair on a 2007 leaky cabrio roof.... you don't expect them to be completely water tight.... equally, rain shouldn't pour in....

It makes no difference what you think whether it should leak or not the fact is it does, it shouldn't and it's agreed to be fixed.

steve-L wrote: »

Again 'reasonable time' open to the magistrate....
Additional costs are the responsibility of both parties. As said they chose to buy 200 miles away and the garage has showed some (probably not enough willing)... if they are going to try and get costs in terms of fuel then they might be better with some paper-trail to back it up???

It's 70 miles if you read the thread and it makes no difference the Law states the repair has to be repair the fault within reasonable time, minimum inconvenience and without additional cost. It's not opinion it's the Law anything outsdide that such as expences or claims for damages to interior or clothing etc etc would be down to opinion and require a paper trail

steve-L wrote: »

Isn't the issue loss of car for a week? (and fuel) so they effectively want a hire car paid, courtesy car or pay a local garage?

Would have thought so yes which is what we started off with :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

gilbert_and_sullivan

I reckon getting all legal will only get their backs up and remove any goodwill that exists, thats up to you, i wouldn't go down that road.

They've offered to fix the car and if it were me i'd simply deliver the car back to them and let them fix it.
The inconvenience is part of the price you pay for buying a known troublesome used car from so far away.

The fix will only be temporary anyway, Pugs are well known for this problem.

steve-L

Silk wrote: »

It makes no difference what you think whether it should leak or not the fact is it does, it shouldn't and it's agreed to be fixed.

Where is it agreed? Is it in writing? If it goes to court and the garage say 'we said we would look at it' then it's probably down to who the magistrate believes.....

It's 70 miles if you read the thread and it makes no difference the Law states the repair has to be repair the fault within reasonable time, minimum inconvenience and without additional cost. It's not opinion it's the Law anything outsdide that such as expences or claims for damages to interior or clothing etc etc would be down to opinion and require a paper trail

So what does the law say is reasonable time?

When I went to CC this followed the DEFENDANT's DEFENCE stating they appealed against a earlier judgement as the address was incorrect and they had 'not received the papers'. This was my fault according to them.

The address was their registered company address.
They had either a mistake on that or on their website and it was the last 2 letters transposed on the postcode.

I asked the magistrate to uphold the appeal and showed him their company address as registered at companies house being identical to the one on the N1 form. The magistrate however decided to ignore that and let it 'be judged on it's merits', a different magistrate might simply have upheld the earlier judgement as it is obviously their responsibility to have the correct company address with company's house.

(or so my cousin, my solicitor tells me)....
He also said he had been in CC SCT where the DEFENDANT had obviously made false declarations and the magistrate decided to ignore this as 'everyone lies in court'.

If you don't like their 'interpretation' you can of course appeal..... however is it worth it over the amounts in small claims?