who to sue?

vaio

yep, but the manufacturer has investigated and denied cover under warranty due to misuse.

For the OP to succeed in a SoG claim they are going to have to find an expert witness who can investigate and convince a court that the manufacturers investigation & decision is wrong. Where are the failed parts? My guess is they would have ended up in the garage scrap bin and even if they were available the costs of an investigation that would defeat the manufacturer are going to be very high.

If the parts were available, investigated and found to be faulty then the best use of that finding would be against the manufacturer to get warranty reinstated rather than trying SoG against the selling dealer

ValHaller

vaio wrote: »

yep, but the manufacturer has investigated and denied cover under warranty due to misuse.

For the OP to succeed in a SoG claim they are going to have to find an expert witness who can investigate and convince a court that the manufacturers investigation & decision is wrong. Where are the failed parts? My guess is they would have ended up in the garage scrap bin and even if they were available the costs of an investigation that would defeat the manufacturer are going to be very high.

If the parts were available, investigated and found to be faulty then the best use of that finding would be against the manufacturer to get warranty reinstated rather than trying SoG against the selling dealer

The manufacturer, if it goes to court, will have to provide evidence. Assertion that it is down to the driver is not sufficient. And all we have at the moment is an assertion. The fact remains that the onus of proof is on the manufacturer.

I agree that the parts will be in the scrap bin - which means that unless the parts have been photographed, the manufacturer does not have the evidence to back up a claim of driver misuse. They probably don't even have a contemporary report.

So, I think it is wrong of you to say that the claim that it is 'driver characteristics' makes OP's claim pretty much bound to fail. OP needs to push the manufacturer to produce evidence - it is for the manufacturer to deliver some evidence.

arcon5

ValHaller wrote: »

The manufacturer, if it goes to court, will have to provide evidence. Assertion that it is down to the driver is not sufficient. And all we have at the moment is an assertion. The fact remains that the onus of proof is on the manufacturer.

I agree that the parts will be in the scrap bin - which means that unless the parts have been photographed, the manufacturer does not have the evidence to back up a claim of driver misuse. They probably don't even have a contemporary report.

So, I think it is wrong of you to say that the claim that it is 'driver characteristics' makes OP's claim pretty much bound to fail. OP needs to push the manufacturer to produce evidence - it is for the manufacturer to deliver some evidence.

Before we can ascertain that we'd need to see the terms of the warranty

AnnieO1234

If you have paid more than fifty per cent off then you can simply give then notice under your credit agreement that you are rejecting the car. Then sue them for the rest of the value.