Can I Chase this legally If So How?

Silk

With all due respect Steve we're going round in circles here cluttering up the Op's thread with "what if" situations so will address a couple of points and then leave it for you to have the last word which you seem intent on doing

steve-L wrote: »

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)

Theres no need to send your copy by RD

steve-L wrote: »

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

I've never had or heard of a proof of delivery not being accepted by a court other than a signature being disputed so can't imagine why your Cousin would think it might

steve-L wrote: »

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...

It's pure speculation in this situation as to how the garage is going to respond.
Once the Trader gets the LBA he has a number of options either try to sort it or ignore it
"If" the OP decides to take it to court depending how the response to the LBA reads the OP can then fill the forms in.
Once the papers have been served the Trader has 14 days to respond to accept or deny with reason or part accept again with reason. Ignoring it will get a default judgement.

Once the Trader responds to the notice the OP will be able to get an idea of what to expect.
Once the Court gets the papers back from the trader many things can happen, it may get thrown out, it may get decided there and then or may be put up for a hearing or even go to ADR.
At this point however it's all down to speculation depending on the Traders response to the LBA so lets wait and see what happens first if we get to find out.

steve-L wrote: »

If the OP doesn't want a leaky Cabrio then don't buy a PUG convertible

It makes no difference what you "think" as to whether it should leak or not the fact is it shouldn't and it does.
The OP has expert opinion that it does and has aquired a repair cost at great expence £94 (which can be claimed back) if the Trader wishes to dispute that they will have to provide expert opinion to say it doesn't or that it is supposed to leak ....highly unlikely

FreddieM

Thank you for all the advice and encouragement during this stressful incident. i am pleased to advise that LUTON TRADE CENTRE finally agreed resentfully to fullfill 85% of their obligation. They agreed to us taking to the car to our local Peugeot dealer for repair. We showed the Peugeot dealer all the emails that promised payment direct to the dealer after we jumped through hoops to satisfy their criteria. Marshalls Peugeot have to be given a pat on the back for their assistance in achieving the end goal. They called Luton Trade Centre and between the two dealers the payment was agreed once an email with the invoice was sent to them. LTC then tried to wriggle out of the payment by saying WE hadn't sent them an email agreeing that the work carried out was acceptable and in final payment from them. Peugeot questioned their crafty backtracking and quoted all the emails over the phone and described LTC directly over the phone as being wholly unprofessional. I was there with my partner who at this stage broke down because it was the attitude LTC had taken all the way through the process, and she felt she would end up paying the whole bill. Not so, Peugeot insisted that if LTC didn't pay up Peugeot would take them to court over non payment. That did it LTC paid by card over the phone. So a victory for the little person although a hollow victory. All we can say from first hand experience is DO NOT BUY A CAR FROMLUTON TRADE CENTRE, IF SO, DO SO AT YOUR PERIL. Having googled for reviews on the company during this incident, it seems that this while claiming to be a family run business who put the customer first, the exact opposite is true.

TradePro

FreddieM wrote: »

Its reasonable to expect a car to function properly and it doesn't.

Hmmm, I'm honestly not sure that it's reasonable to expect a 5/6 year old PEUGEOT CONVERTIBLE to not let in any water when it rains (within reason of course, obviously I haven't witnessed the amount of ingress).

These things are godawful when they're new, if people stopped buying them in the first place they wouldn't become a problem to people buying them cheap-ish a few years down the line.

I have no affiliation with the garage you bought the car from (never heard of them to be honest) but feel a bit sorry for them as they didn't build the P.O.S., they just tried to make a few quid selling it...

If you think it shouldn't leak at all at this age, perhaps you should take it up with the manufacturer?

As a side note, has anyone noticed that almost all of the 'my car is broken' threads are Peugeot/Citroen/Renault or VW/Audi/BMW/Mini? When will people finally accept that they should switch to Japanese/Korean stuff and stop putting 'form' above function...just my (professional) opinion.

steve-L

TradePro wrote: »

Hmmm, I'm honestly not sure that it's reasonable to expect a 5/6 year old PEUGEOT CONVERTIBLE to not let in any water when it rains (within reason of course, obviously I haven't witnessed the amount of ingress).

These things are godawful when they're new, if people stopped buying them in the first place they wouldn't become a problem to people buying them cheap-ish a few years down the line.

I have no affiliation with the garage you bought the car from (never heard of them to be honest) but feel a bit sorry for them as they didn't build the P.O.S., they just tried to make a few quid selling it...

If you think it shouldn't leak at all at this age, perhaps you should take it up with the manufacturer?

As a side note, has anyone noticed that almost all of the 'my car is broken' threads are Peugeot/Citroen/Renault or VW/Audi/BMW/Mini? When will people finally accept that they should switch to Japanese/Korean stuff and stop putting 'form' above function...just my (professional) opinion.

Iv'e yet to see a USED S2000 that the roof doesn't leak a bit!
I agree overall....
I don't really think its reasonable by default to buy ANY 5-6 year old convertible and expect the roof NOT to leak a bit.....
If you choose a PSA one then that becomes even less likely to happen....

It makes no difference what you "think" as to whether it should leak or not the fact is it shouldn't and it does.

It's not what I think, it's what is generally accepted when buying a convertible....

You can buy a car that is watertight to several metres.... BMW sell them to diplomats (I'm sure other companies do as well but I have a friend who used to sell the special BMW's)... they are airtight and have a air cylinder to allow the occupants to survive chemical attacks.
The windows are bulletproof .... etc. etc.

However, stick a normal car in 3m of water and it will leak all over.

By the same token, stick ANY cabrio out in a monsoon type downpour and it WILL leak..... any 6 year old one will probably leak quite a bit!

Just as you accept your normal car is not watertight when driven into a lake so a Cabrio is not watertight in heavy rain.

FreddieM

We bought a car which was sold as fit for purpose. Clearly it wasn't so we pursued what we thought was a reasonable compromise. The dealer lied when he said he had fixed it, he tried his level best to get out of any contributory claim and confirmed what a lot of people class as a typical Arthur Daley dealer. We are happy that we had the balls to not let the dealer walk over us. Whether you agree or not if anybody should buy this type of car is subjective. There is a market for the type of car and the massive worldwide sales prove that. If we use the logic that a 5-6 year old car should be full of faults, then our second hand car market would diminish. I expect a washing machine to last 5 -6 years so why should I not reasonably expect the same with a car!!!
DO NOT BUY FROM LUTON TRADE CENTRE

peter_the_piper

Don't know if it helps, pretty late now, but OH has a 206cc which I assume you have. She had a weep in the seal on the roof. She was recommended to use 3in1 silicone lubricant spray. Seems to have fixed hers for the last 9 moths so far. Hope this is of help as its worth a shot.

TradePro

FreddieM wrote: »

DO NOT BUY FROM LUTON TRADE CENTRE THEY ARE CON MEN

That sell six year old cars that leak, but have probably leaked since they were 6 months old...

Again, I don't know the company at all, but can almost guarantee that you are out of order.

steve-L

FreddieM wrote: »

We bought 5-6 year old cara car which was sold as fit for purpose.

If you read OFT1241/1242 the examples show what fit for purpose is for a 5-6 year old car. It is expected to have some wear and tear and non critical faults.

Clearly it wasn't so we pursued what we thought was a reasonable compromise.

Reasonable in a 5-6 yr old convertible is 'not rivers of water'?
if it was a saloon then a slight leak in the door would still be 'reasonable condition'....

The dealer lied when he said he had fixed it, he tried his level best to get out of any contributory claim and confirmed what a lot of people class as a typical Arthur Daley dealer. We are happy that we had the balls to not let the dealer walk over us.

I think you and the dealer have a difference in expectations....
Short of replacing the whole roof you can't expect it to work like new... and in the 206 'like new' still leaks....

Whether you agree or not if anybody should buy this type of car is subjective. There is a market for the type of car and the massive worldwide sales prove that.

I never said that, I simply said that people buying one need to accept it leaks..... one of my best friends had a 306 convertible from NEW (company car)..... IT always leaked.....
I have numerous friends with convertibles.... non of them are 'water tight' ....
They just accept it as part of the fun......
The compromise is the semi-hard top.... and even these still leak compared to a saloon.

If we use the logic that a 5-6 year old car should be full of faults, then our second hand car market would diminish. I expect a washing machine to last 5 -6 years so why should I not reasonably expect the same with a car!!!

You don't expect the 5-6 yr old cheap washing machine to work AS-NEW after 5-6 years.... If you buy a £300 washing machine it will likely not.... if you spend £1000 on a Meile then it probably will....

FreddieM

steve-L wrote: »

If you read OFT1241/1242 the examples show what fit for purpose is for a 5-6 year old car. It is expected to have some wear and tear and non critical faults.


Reasonable in a 5-6 yr old convertible is 'not rivers of water'?
if it was a saloon then a slight leak in the door would still be 'reasonable condition'....


I think you and the dealer have a difference in expectations....
Short of replacing the whole roof you can't expect it to work like new... and in the 206 'like new' still leaks....


I never said that, I simply said that people buying one need to accept it leaks..... one of my best friends had a 306 convertible from NEW (company car)..... IT always leaked.....
I have numerous friends with convertibles.... non of them are 'water tight' ....
They just accept it as part of the fun......
The compromise is the semi-hard top.... and even these still leak compared to a saloon.


You don't expect the 5-6 yr old cheap washing machine to work AS-NEW after 5-6 years.... If you buy a £300 washing machine it will likely not.... if you spend £1000 on a Meile then it probably will....

It's a 207cc and it's NOT known for a leaking roof and as I said the dealer confirmed prior to collection that it had been fixed, clearly that was not the case. I just wonder if your comments are based on experience or hearsay, because I have driven convertibles of one sort or another for more than 30 years, without ever experiencing the leaks as you state!!! Thank you for your commments anyway ;-)

ILW

FreddieM wrote: »

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!!!

This is like buying a tent though.