Can the Credit card Company charge me interest when in dispute over section 75

davidious

bris wrote: »

Your not entitled to the repair costs if it exceeds the cars value. Your not entitled to 5k and keep the car as this is clearly you intention.


The CC co will win even though they will still have to pay the refund the courts will see your claim as unnecessary and will not award you costs.


I take it you didn't seek legal advice as this is basic stuff you should have looked into before taking them on.

Yes we are entitled to price reduction if repair is not possible. No additional costs where offered either as well as Reports the CC company had asked, for them to make a decision. Price reduction is covered in Consumer rights act 2015 section 24 5. B and section 23 3.

When they rejected this Offer and defended it. we made offer of repair costs capped at the purchase price.

We already spent over 4 grand repairing the Vehicle so far with another 5 to go.

jellie

Why didn't you go down the formal compaint route and then the FOS? You could still have gone to court if FOS didn't find in your favour.

CC company don't want you to potentially put an unroadworthy car back on the road. If they just gave you a payment in lieu of repairs, they wouldn't have had any control over the repairs and don't want to have any possibility of poor repairs coming back to bite them in the future.

Full refund of the car (less an amount for how long you had use of it before it went wrong), plus the cost of expert reports you had to obtain, and costs to scrap would have been a very reasonable outcome of your complaint. Maybe a bit on top for inconvenience.

Why is it going to take £9k to repair and why do you want to keep a car with so much wrong with it?

bris

Your not entitled to pick the remedy, you can ask but it is within their right to refuse. Your claim is unreasonable therefor the courts will see it that way.


You asked them to pay you 7k to repair the car, that was never going to happen, then you asked for 5k for the same reason. Your at it and they know it.


Rejecting the full refund was a mistake, the judge will remind you of this in no uncertain terms.

davidious

bris wrote: »

Your not entitled to pick the remedy, you can ask but it is within their right to refuse. Your claim is unreasonable therefor the courts will see it that way.


You asked them to pay you 7k to repair the car, that was never going to happen, then you asked for 5k for the same reason. Your at it and they know it.


Rejecting the full refund was a mistake, the judge will remind you of this in no uncertain terms.

So I have to pay out of pocket to scrap it myself and get not my costs back for reports on the Vehicle.

As long as the remedy is not disproportionate I am entitled to pick.

I can have repair or refund. If repair is not possible a price reduction.

If the Vehicle is only worth scrap then the repair costs are not disproportionate as long as there not more than the purchase price.


The bank have even said in there defense.
If the Claimant is successful in proving her claim the correct redress would be.

The Claimant keeps the vehicle and is awarded damages representiy the cost of her repairing the vehicle alleged defects to the extent that any such defects were present at the point of sale; or

THe Claimant rejects the vehicle and is entitled to a full refund of the cost of purchasing it. In which circumstances, the Claimant must sell the vehicle for its full market value and provide the proceeds to the Defendant or give the Defendant possession of the vehicle so that it may sell it.

naedanger

davidious wrote: »

So I have to pay out of pocket to scrap it myself and get not my costs back for reports on the Vehicle.

As long as the remedy is not disproportionate I am entitled to pick.

I can have repair or refund. If repair is not possible a price reduction.

If the Vehicle is only worth scrap then the repair costs are not disproportionate as long as there not more than the purchase price.


The bank have even said in there defense.
If the Claimant is successful in proving her claim the correct redress would be.

The Claimant keeps the vehicle and is awarded damages representiy the cost of her repairing the vehicle alleged defects to the extent that any such defects were present at the point of sale; or

THe Claimant rejects the vehicle and is entitled to a full refund of the cost of purchasing it. In which circumstances, the Claimant must sell the vehicle for its full market value and provide the proceeds to the Defendant or give the Defendant possession of the vehicle so that it may sell it.

It seems to me you are doing a good job of arguing your case. As long as you are only aiming to avoid being out of pocket from the defendant's breach of the contract (and you would be out of pocket with a mere refund because of the costs you have incurred as a result of their breach) then I think you will be fine in court. (Though nothing is ever guaranteed e.g. you could lose on a technicality if you sue the wrong party etc .)

I do agree that the garage would have been able to pick the remedy, but only one that does not leave you out of pocket - so you are entitled to reject a full refund in your case because they are not agreeing to pay for your other costs (that arose from their breach).

Regarding your specific question, I don't know the answer, but the following sounds right to me:

chattychappy wrote: »

...
The simplest approach is to pay interest (or pay the balance) and then claim it back if you win. Then if you lose, at least your credit file isn't trashed through late payments/non payments (if you're not paying at all).
...

blink18

davidious wrote: »

So I have to pay out of pocket to scrap it myself and get not my costs back for reports on the Vehicle.

As long as the remedy is not disproportionate I am entitled to pick.

I can have repair or refund. If repair is not possible a price reduction.

If the Vehicle is only worth scrap then the repair costs are not disproportionate as long as there not more than the purchase price.


The bank have even said in there defense.
If the Claimant is successful in proving her claim the correct redress would be.

The Claimant keeps the vehicle and is awarded damages representiy the cost of her repairing the vehicle alleged defects to the extent that any such defects were present at the point of sale; or

THe Claimant rejects the vehicle and is entitled to a full refund of the cost of purchasing it. In which circumstances, the Claimant must sell the vehicle for its full market value and provide the proceeds to the Defendant or give the Defendant possession of the vehicle so that it may sell it.

why? i've never paid to scrap a car, in fact they come to collect the car and pay me, which depending on the car will more than offset any monies you've paid out for reports.

Personally I cant think of any car that you'd buy for 7k and have repair costs for an engine at 7k, or even 5k.

it'll be clear to anyone what you're attempting, full payout on the car minus scrap value and then to make a cheap engine replacement, so you're a few k up on the deal.

Caz3121

blink18 wrote: »

Personally I cant think of any car that you'd buy for 7k and have repair costs for an engine at 7k, or even 5k.

I suspect it was this 15 year old vehicle
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5417050

davidious

blink18 wrote: »

why? i've never paid to scrap a car, in fact they come to collect the car and pay me, which depending on the car will more than offset any monies you've paid out for reports.

Personally I cant think of any car that you'd buy for 7k and have repair costs for an engine at 7k, or even 5k.

it'll be clear to anyone what you're attempting, full payout on the car minus scrap value and then to make a cheap engine replacement, so you're a few k up on the deal.

Due to the size of the vehicle and location none of the scrap can pick up the vehicle so I have to use a flatbed transport service.

I can Provide evidence of the £3,000 in parts we spent so far £2,000 in labour costs. And at least another £5,000 to go.

The complete braking system needed replacing
offside Track rod end ball joint dust cover excessively deteriorated so that it no longer prevents the ingress of dirt
Braking pipes, pads, discs
The windscreen needs to come out to fix major rust issues.
The sliding door needs to come off to replace panels.
The Wheels where binding.
Brake lake oil leak.
Water pump needed replacing was advertised as being replaced. Etc
On top of the engine issues.



We had already paid for the Vehicle by time any of these issues came up. Vehicle had apparently had inspection carried out and was good surprising good for age and mileage.

eskbanker

Assuming it's the vehicle from the thread linked above, it seems to me that you've painted yourselves into a bit of a corner by spending a fortune on repairs that effectively rule out the outcome of a full refund on the purchase. This course of action makes it clear that you wish to keep the vehicle and so prejudices your negotiating position.

If the MOT in February, after you'd already driven the vehicle from Germany, only highlighted relatively minor faults (lamps, etc, plus some braking adjustments) but you've since got a report suggesting that it needs engine replacement plus panels, rust, etc, then this presumably still leaves the argument to be made that these are all issues that the dealer knew about in advance and misrepresented and that none of them are age-related problems inherent in a vehicle of that vintage?

Going back to your original question, I can't see any basis on which you wouldn't be expected to pay interest on what you currently owe the CC company - it may be that this is ultimately overturned if you win your case but as things stand right now you do owe them the money so should pay the interest on it.

JGUK

Was it the VW T4 Camper Pop ?

If so, when did the engine difficulties come to light ?

Did the MOT not pick them up ?

Have you got official documentation stating the the engine has been damaged for some time ?