Can I Chase this legally If So How?

Silk

steve-L wrote: »

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.....

If the Trader wishes to contest the summary in the LBA they will have the chance to do so when the LBA is received.

steve-L wrote: »

So what does the law say is reasonable time?

It doesn't, although as a general rule it's accepted the earliest opportunity acceptable for both parties. In this instance it would prbably be accepted with a fault that causes further damage if ignored.

steve-L wrote: »

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.

It probably was as you should have obtained proof of delivery hence the advice to send the LBA recorded

FreddieM

gilbert_and_sullivan wrote: »

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.

They offered and said they fixed the car the first time but didn't, (it says that in my original post). They suggested We go to a local dealer, and have a copy of the the original report. They said on Friday that they tried to get it done by the AA under it's 3 month warranty.AA wan't having any of it. It seems to me that they just don't want toi fix it and are making life as hard as they can for my partner. There should be no inconvenience at all, the distance is irrelevant, if my partner needs transport she needs transport, the fact that a Pug or a Ford or a Renault or whatever has a known problem would only get manufacturers a bad reputation. If she was local she would still need transport for the nature of her work. There was no suggestion from Luton that she shouldn't buy it because she lives 70 miles away!!!!!!

spiro

FreddieM wrote: »

There was no suggestion from Luton that she shouldn't buy it because she lives 70 miles away!!!!!!

There may not have been but common sense tells you that any problem with the car means you are going to have to travel back to the garage you bought it from possibly more than once.

FreddieM

spiro wrote: »

There may not have been but common sense tells you that any problem with the car means you are going to have to travel back to the garage you bought it from possibly more than once.

Common sense says we all buy things from afar, that should never be an issue... Its reasonable to expect a car to function properly and it doesn't. I just want to know her consumer rights which is why I posted on here, because many will have gone through a similar experience and which can be of benefit. I wish she had hindsight........ alas she doesn't

redux

FreddieM wrote: »

There was no suggestion from Luton that she shouldn't buy it because she lives 70 miles away!!!!!!

No, but on the other hand they are entitled to try to repair the car at their cost at their premises.

If you propose to have the work done at another place, then even with everything else being equal it will naturally tend to cost more, because of the element of profit in the price at that other place, whereas they might charge themselves internally at a wholesale or no profit basis.

So to begin with it's fair enough that if you insist on somewhere else only as a matter of convenience to you, that they point out this would cost them more and they might not be willing to cover the full amount.

Unfortunately the proportion suggested disappointed you and your positions seem to have diverged since then, and now a compromise seems to be a bit further away, but that doesn't mean their initial suggestion for covering the repair was completely out of order.

As for the AA warranty covering it or not, I can imagine that the underwriters' position might be that they can't establish for certain that this issue has arisen happened during their liability, i.e. since the sale, particularly as you mention this as a previous fault having supposedly been repaired.

FreddieM

redux wrote: »

No, but on the other hand they are entitled to try to repair the car at their cost at their premises.

If you propose to have the work done at another place, then even with everything else being equal it will naturally tend to cost more, because of the element of profit in the price at that other place, whereas they might charge themselves internally at a wholesale or no profit basis.

Can I just quote my post 23!!!

So to begin with it's fair enough that if you insist on somewhere else only as a matter of convenience to you, that they point out this would cost them more and they might not be willing to cover the full amount.

We didn't insist as stated above, it was the garage that suggested we get a diagnosis locally, which we did at a cost of £94.00 We sent them a copy of that diagnosis but still they ducked and dived.

Unfortunately the proportion suggested disappointed you and your positions seem to have diverged since then, and now a compromise seems to be a bit further away, but that doesn't mean their initial suggestion for covering the repair was completely out of order.

I never suggested that but my partner should not be out of pocket as a result of a repair they said they had fixed and subsequently it has shown that they hadnt. They did have the option to put it right in the first instance... They didn't.

As for the AA warranty covering it or not, I can imagine that the underwriters' position might be that they can't establish for certain that this issue has arisen happened during their liability, i.e. since the sale, particularly as you mention this as a previous fault having supposedly been repaired.

We know this and it wasn't suggested by us but by the garage manager himself

The fault was there at the outset, we had assurances from what we now know to be one of the director's that the fault would be put right prior to collection. Surely we have a right to expect that to be true???

atrixblue.-MFR-.

1.the garage has an opertunity to repair in house, at satisfactory terms agreed by both parties.

2.the garage has offered a part payment to repair at another traders premises, you can do this then go to small claims to recover the outstanding costs incured to you.

3.you can argue it out in court. fist of all you will be offered a mediation conference, before you go to court via the court you have submitted the claim to.

4.you can call the dealer, ask to speak to the director or the head principal, you can calmy but firmly ask him to provide the cost of fuel to take the car back there, and that a curtesy car be provided whilst the car is repaired and that it has a full tank of fuel to limit the costs and inconvienience to yourselfs as described on SOGA, that you will want to see reciepts for parts carried out, and that you want the car tested prior to acceptance of taking it back with you present.

youll be on a sticky wicket going into court now with 2 options available from the dealer.

steve-L

Silk wrote: »

It probably was as you should have obtained proof of delivery hence the advice to send the LBA recorded

Court send that out not me.... and court do not send it recorded delivery anyway (however it is deemed delivered as soon as posted isn't it) with the information on the N1. The information on the N1 was correct according to their registered office address

However, the garage in question also refused to sign for recorded delivery letters (after the 1st letter).... This was equally hard to prove as the PO doesn't keep very good records of reasons why a delivery wasn't made.

Anyway, I'm not saying that what you are saying is incorrect but that the more you have to put in front of the magistrate to show you have made every effort to recover the money outside of court the more likely they will be to decide what is 'reasonable' in your favour.

Asserting SOGA on used car's is never straight forwards.... on one hand you have case law and on the other the OFT Guidance for used car dealers seem's to indicate differently or try and explain 'reasonable'.

Hence the leaky roof.... is it reasonable that it leaks a bit[/b] and what is 'a bit'? It is after all a PUG with known leaky roofs on Cabriolets.... nor is it new....

The OFT 1241/1242 'GUIDANCE' shows several examples of reasonable and unreasonable relating to cars, how serious the fault is (does it prevent the car being used) and how old is the car.

Obviously the magistrate to choose to completely ignore these as they are only guidance....

Silk

steve-L wrote: »

Court send that out not me.... and court do not send it recorded delivery anyway (however it is deemed delivered as soon as posted isn't it) with the information on the N1. The information on the N1 was correct according to their registered office address

That seems rather strange most send out RD as far as I'm aware. Even so your point about "deemed delivered" only applies to Limited Companies providing it's sent to the registered address papers are deemed to be served even if they don't receive them.

steve-L wrote: »

However, the garage in question also refused to sign for recorded delivery letters (after the 1st letter).... This was equally hard to prove as the PO doesn't keep very good records of reasons why a delivery wasn't made.

As I said earlier, if you had sent the LBA RD. then you would have been able to prove correct address and even so failed delivery would have been sent back to the Court. They would have notified you to serve papers yourself or arange for Sheriff officer to serve them.

All that said I assume the application to set aside judgement and set a new date would not have affected the outcome of your claim other than to delay matters subject to a fresh hearing.
Either way the minor point about serving papers has little to do with the OP's situation or thread.

steve-L wrote: »

Asserting SOGA on used car's is never straight forwards.... on one hand you have case law and on the other the OFT Guidance for used car dealers seem's to indicate differently or try and explain 'reasonable'

.
The OFT Guidance is quite clear ..the vehicle has to be fit for purpose, satisfactory quality etc etc and the trader is liable for faults that were on the car at that point even inherent ones.
The Trader also had the fault pointed out to him and has attempted a repair which again the OFT Guidance holds the Trader liable.
A Trader asking a customer to only meet costs halfway for a fault that should not have been there in the first place is unreasonable

steve-L wrote: »

Hence the leaky roof.... is it reasonable that it leaks a bit[/b] and what is 'a bit'? It is after all a PUG with known leaky roofs on Cabriolets.... nor is it new....

It makes no difference whether you think a roof on a Pug should leak or not. In satisfactory condition it shouldn't leak, The OP didn't want a car that leaked and the Trader told him it didn't leak because it was repaired.
The car does leak and the Trader is liable for it

steve-L

Silk wrote: »

That seems rather strange most send out RD as far as I'm aware. Even so your point about "deemed delivered" only applies to Limited Companies providing it's sent to the registered address papers are deemed to be served even if they don't receive them.

The copy we got from the court were NOT RD.... (That doesn't mean the ones sent to the DEFENDANT were not .... but it would seem so)

As I said earlier, if you had sent the LBA RD. then you would have been able to prove correct address and even so failed delivery would have been sent back to the Court. They would have notified you to serve papers yourself or arange for Sheriff officer to serve them.

I'd have thought so!
My cousin/solicitor however did warn be the magistrate might not accept that.

All that said I assume the application to set aside judgement and set a new date would not have affected the outcome of your claim other than to delay matters subject to a fresh hearing.

Actually, it cost extra insurance but theoretically it didn't materially affect the case

Either way the minor point about serving papers has little to do with the OP's situation or thread.

The point is to have as much in writing as possible.
Much of the DEFENCE (prepared by their solicitors) was around REASONABLE... Much of it related to phone calls that didn't exist that the court could have checked didn't exist if it issued a court order for the records. We were able to prove we didn't call them yet they claimed (falsely) that they had called us....

They also claimed what was 'said' in these mythical conversations...

The OFT Guidance is quite clear ..the vehicle has to be fit for purpose, satisfactory quality etc etc and the trader is liable for faults that were on the car at that point even inherent ones.

It also goes to some length as to what the OFT consider fit-for-purpose and how this changes with the age of the car .

The Trader also had the fault pointed out to him and has attempted a repair which again the OFT Guidance holds the Trader liable.

and I'm just pointing out that the evidence for that is their word against the garage. In MY case, the garage lied through their teeth.... even when the court could have issued a court order to check phone records didn't actually occur!

A Trader asking a customer to only meet costs halfway for a fault that should not have been there in the first place is unreasonable

But that depends if that 'fault' is acceptable and doesn't prevent the car being used for the purpose they told the garage they would use it.

It makes no difference whether you think a roof on a Pug should leak or not. In satisfactory condition it shouldn't leak, The OP didn't want a car that leaked and the Trader told him it didn't leak because it was repaired.
The car does leak and the Trader is liable for it

If the OP doesn't want a leaky Cabrio then don't buy a PUG convertible.... ALL Cabrio's leak to some extent .... even Merc's and BMW's... let alone PUG's. PUG's are just known for it!
(Its part and parcel of the FUN of owning a Cabrio in the UK climate)

So leaky is between a slight dribble in the morning after a heavy storm and an inch of water in the footwell.

If the OP's garage are prepared to lie as much as the one I dealt with they will say 'they offered to take a look and do best efforts'.
The OP will say they said they would 'repair' and it all comes down to who said what!

So I'm just pointing out... the more is committed to paper the better.