Faulty car, Section 75, Court action, Help!!

unholyangel

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Not a good idea to mention this.
S75 is part of the Consumer credit act and if your credit card company think that the car was being used for business purposes, they may well try to use that as a reason to refuse the claim.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/62/62-consumer-credit.htm

For Section 75 to apply, in the first instance the following four conditions must all be satisfied:

- The cash price of the goods or services bought by the consumer must be over £100 and not more than £30,000.

- The amount of credit provided to the consumer towards the purchase must not exceed £25,000, and must have been provided to an 'individual' (which includes sole traders, small partnerships and unincorporated businesses, as well as ordinary consumers).

- The provider of credit must be in the business of lending money, and the credit agreement must have been made in the course of that business.

- The credit must have been provided to the consumer under pre-existing arrangements between the provider of credit and the supplier of the goods and services.

Apparently for the purposes of CCA, self employed would be covered.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/8

Consumer credit agreements.

(1)A [F1consumer] credit agreement is an agreement between an individual ( “the debtor ”) and any other person ( “the creditor ”) by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount.

.

But I agree it is best not to mention - especially if the clients were rescheduled and not completely lost. Unfortunately self employed/sole traders get the short end that way.

Shouldn't interfere with the consumer rights act application either - unless they purchased the car mainly/wholly for business use:

The other main restriction on who is a consumer is that a consumer must be acting wholly or mainly outside their trade, business, craft or profession. This means, for example, that a person who buys a kettle for their home, works from home one day a week and uses it on the days when working from home would still be a consumer. Conversely a sole trader that operates from a private dwelling who buys a printer of which 95% of the use is for the purposes of the business, is not likely to be held to be a consumer (and therefore the rights in this Part will not protect that sole trader but they would have to look to other legislation. For example, if the sole trader were buying goods, they would have to look to the SGA for protections about the quality of the goods).

Above is taken from explanatory notes of the consumer rights act found here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/2

shaun_from_Africa

I realise that simply using the car to visit clients wouldn't make it a business purchase (after all, a great many people use their personal cars for commuting to and from work), but I thought that it might not be a good idea to mention it simply because it might delay the claim process.
From my limited S75 experience and from reading of other's experiences on here, it does seem that some credit companies do whatever they can to avoid having to pay out so limiting their possible excuses can only be a good thing.

s_b

Just for the record my leaning towards business to business was not in relation to credit card company but to seller of vehicle
ie customer tells me they are a window cleaner and thus car must be able to have roof bars fitted for their ladders,this clearly demonstrates to me business use hence business to business contract
it would then follow that the selling dealer should be given the opportunity to inspect the car and not just take the word of consumer or some man in an orange van
these points would need addresing if this car was returned to me some 14 days since sale and wanting their money back
i often see buyers remorse but often a solution can be found to the remedy of all parties
to op seller has offered money back so you only need to remove negative feedback,put yourself in their position how would you like to be given negative feedback thus removing your ability to make a living

shaun_from_Africa

s_b wrote: »

put yourself in their position how would you like to be given negative feedback thus removing your ability to make a living

If the business in question abided by their legal obligations and didn't lie to their customers, there is a very good possibility that they wouldn't receive any negative feedback in the first place.

unholyangel

s_b wrote: »

Just for the record my leaning towards business to business was not in relation to credit card company but to seller of vehicle
ie customer tells me they are a window cleaner and thus car must be able to have roof bars fitted for their ladders,this clearly demonstrates to me business use hence business to business contract
it would then follow that the selling dealer should be given the opportunity to inspect the car and not just take the word of consumer or some man in an orange van
these points would need addresing if this car was returned to me some 14 days since sale and wanting their money back
i often see buyers remorse but often a solution can be found to the remedy of all parties
to op seller has offered money back so you only need to remove negative feedback,put yourself in their position how would you like to be given negative feedback thus removing your ability to make a living

Well had they been making an honest living in the first place, OP would not have needed to leave such negative feedback.

Perhaps as a business they should take their responsibilities more seriously and not try to wriggle out of their legal obligations.

s_b

shaun from Africa
unholyangel

you have taken the words of a poster without having read the traders report
as you may be aware im a trader and a consumer so i see both sides
it might be wise to remember this because otherwise its like the child coming home crying theyve been hit only to find the other child actually has a meat cleaver in their head

shaun_from_Africa

s_b wrote: »

shaun from Africa
unholyangel

you have taken the words of a poster without having read the traders report
as you may be aware im a trader and a consumer so i see both sides
it might be wise to remember this because otherwise its like the child coming home crying theyve been hit only to find the other child actually has a meat cleaver in their head

And you appear to have automatically taken the traders side without seeing the AA report or hearing what the trader themselves said.
As with most posts on here, only one side is heard and advice and opinions have to be given on the information provided.

The OP stated that they have an AA report detailing the fault, they stated that they contacted the trader who initially ignored them and then lied about their legal obligations and who is now refusing a refund.

Why would the OP lie about any of this?
If the OP is lying then the trader should easily win a court case for libel.
Do you really think that this case is ever going to actually happen?

unholyangel

s_b wrote: »

shaun from Africa
unholyangel

you have taken the words of a poster without having read the traders report
as you may be aware im a trader and a consumer so i see both sides
it might be wise to remember this because otherwise its like the child coming home crying theyve been hit only to find the other child actually has a meat cleaver in their head

Why do I need to see the report? Its within 6 months from purchase - its for the trader to prove the fault is not inherent. The trader was trying to wriggle out of their legal obligations and thats the kind of trader we can do without. You wont be able to plead ignorance as a person if you break the law, so why should a business?

OP wanted a refund so they got a report (as per CRA) - which trader then refused to look at lol.


Or are you forgetting these statements from the OP:

All dealer would say was that we couldn't return it we had to give him the chance to repair. ....
He insisted he didn't have to refund. ...
it would be fine for us to use it on his trade plates, sooo not legal, so we refused that too

s_b

i am not taking sides
i said theres 2 sides to every story
i would not however accept a report from a man in an orange van as proof of anything because all he will do is plug a code reader into the car and print off what it says
he will not be a master technician
it therefore follows that the garage went through due diligence in confirming the vehicle had a problem something you would all do if it was a car you had sold for 3.5k you would not just give a refund on the say so of a report from a man in a van
the OP then goes on to give bad feedback and the seller said remove this or take me to court
the op also says

this is why i said dont believe everything you read

on the thing about trade plates i seem to be the only person in my area who actually knows how to use these in accordance with them being issued so i would not hold this against the trader either

LisaandMatt

Been busy for last couple of days so only just catching up.

Didn't think this would cause a stir, I was only hoping for a bit of "Yes you've got a fair claim, you're going down the right road, I've experienced this myself and this is what happened....."

The main purpose of the car was to tow a trailer with our rally car on the back to and from events (which is what we told the dealer) Hubby decided to use the vehicle to get to/from work for a few days to get used to it and make sure all was well before hitching up and towing a trailer of almost 2000KG!! Very glad we did as complete engine cut-out was scary enough without towing that much weight on the back. It is not a business vehicle purchased by a business. It was a personal sale.

We are taking this very seriously but as this is a very stressful situation the light hearted comment of "annoying the dealer" was just that, light hearted and a way of attempting to lighten what is causing us so much grief. Plus considering how the dealer is treating us a little bit of a dig at him is, in my view, totally fair.

We are continuing with our S75 claim as the paperwork has now arrived and I have been in contact with the relevant regulatory bodies regarding the legality of calling yourself a member of the Queen's Counsel if it turns out that you aren't.

I appreciate that a bad review of any sort can have a negative impact on a traders ability to run their business successfully but if the trader does things by the book and is helpful when things don't work out they are unlikely to get bad reviews in the first place (although there are some people out there who are never happy, goes with the territory) Being self employed myself for many years I am very aware of keeping clients happy and if a problem ever does arise I go above and beyond to try to sort it. I don't clam up and refuse to comply with the law then threaten court action if they then go on to tell others the truth about how I have acted. Sadly it is the few bad traders that give the vast majority of good ones out there a bad name.

It was only after us leaving the bad review for them that they admitted the fault and offered a refund but only if we removed the review. We did amend the review to say we had been offered a refund so anyone reading it will be able to see that. We just wont be bullied into removing it. They legally have to refund but are still refusing. So to still be threatening legal action for what can only be libel is silly as libel is only possible if it's a lie. According to defamation law (as I understand it) we would only be found guilty of it if we weren't able to prove what we said was true, we can, so......

Trade plates. I imagine all trade policies differ somewhat but we were told we would be able to use another car on the traders plates as it covers it not having tax. Again this is only my understanding of it but research on a standard trade policy says it covers the trader and any named person on the policy to drive a vehicle that they are delivering/collecting, taking to/from workshop, valeting and that type of thing or for it to be taken on a test drive with a potential buyer. As it wouldn't be being used for any of those things (it would be for personal use by us) we didn't want to take the risk. For other courtesy vehicles I have had in the past whilst mine was in for servicing etc I have had to sign paperwork for insurance purposes and had copies of paperwork to say that I was able to drive the car. Not just given a set of trade plates and told "it'll be fine with those".

Sorry, bit of a long one again but just wanted to address some of the points raised by other posters.