Yes it's The Car

mc303

please check your messages
thank you

mc303

this has been revised, will post later

MothballsWallet

naedanger wrote: »

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/

I suggest you select the option for "upheld" and enter "section 75" in the search field and widen the date range.

The website seems quite slow to update.

Probably because it looks like it was designed on a budget of £10 and by someone in love with the newer blue & white MSE layout...

Cloth_of_Gold

Let us know how you get on mc303. I hope you finally get justice - you deserve it for perseverance alone!

A very minor issue but since when was it acceptable to use contractions ('it's', 'i've', 'didn't', etc.) in formal correspondence? At least the letter didn't start 'hello', which seems to be common practice now.

mc303

hi, after the car was returned april 10 i knew the fault had not been repaired, so on the 15th i took it to a 4x4 specialist for a report which confirmed the work had not resolved the issue and that it had caused further damage when returned, i forwarded this invoice to the case worker and also pointed out some of her faults, this was her reply today

Thanks for your patience whilst you’ve waiting for me to get back to you. I understand that you’d like an ombudsman to now review your complaint, so I’m arranging for this to be done.

In the meantime, I also wanted to respond to the points you raised in your email (31 May 2017), because I don’t want you to feel these have been ignored.

When I sent my first view (23 February 2017) I referred to what was decided at the point of sale regarding the faults with your car; this was based on testimony I received from the dealership. It’s difficult for me to know what was/wasn’t agreed at the time of your sale (in so far as what faults were pointed out and where, and missing parts etc), so I don’t want to comment anymore at this time (taken from point 1 from your email (31 May 2017).

I believed that a breach of contract had taken place, but, I concluded that MBNA don’t need to do anything more to put things right on your complaint. You’ve said (points 2 and 3) that you took your car back to the seller for a second time. However, I haven’t seen from any of the evidence (both you, MBNA and the dealership has sent me) (i sent her a report from the garage) that you tried to take your Land Rover back, and the dealership refused/failed to repair the rear differential. As I’ve previously explained, you sent me in an email dated 5 October, which shows xxx from the dealership wasn’t able to hear a noise in your car at the time. (xxx has never been involved at any time to make an opinion?) They agreed to try and see if a fault with the rear differential could be diagnosed, and if it was, they would “rectify it straight away”. So I’m can’t fairly say that the dealership failed in the previous attempts to repair, when faults with the rear differential weren’t picked up at the beginning stages (just after you’d taken delivery) of the events of your complaint. ( i provided her with 4 independent reports showing the diff had failed less than a month after purchase? the dealer refused to accept the diff had failed their mechanic said the diff had failed but instead changed the centre bearing?)

As I stated in my third review of your complaint (25 May 2017), the dealership has refused to send you an invoice for the work carried out on your rear differential, because this was an arrangements between them and the specialist they instructed. I’m not prepared to comment further on this, as I don’t think there’s anything more I can say about this. I understand that you didn’t have to pay for anything for this re-build.

I checked the original registration of your vehicle on the government website and discovered that the age of your car was 10 years at the point of sale; because it was 10 years since the car was first registered. (wrong again)

The “problems” which you refer to in your last paragraph, which have happened over 8 months after the sale: This would mean that it is up to you to show that it was more probably than not that these faults were inherent with the car at the time of sale.

Please could you send into me any further information you want the ombudsman to consider by 26 June 2017. If I don’t hear back from you I’ll assume that you’ve sent into use everything already.

Many Thanks

my response:

Hi, the car was 9 years of age at purchase date of registration Jan 2007, date of purchase Aug 2016, i have showed you a report clearly stating the faults have not been repaired after the sellers 4th attempt, dated after their claim of repair, the seller refused to accept the rear diff was at fault even tho i have shown you 4 reports less than a month after the sale, the seller has not provided you with any evidence that they attempted to repair the faults yet you accept their word over written independent reports, because of these faults that were present at the time of purchase i would be lucky if the vehicle would sell for £xxxx that is a loss of £xxxx (50%) in less of a month of purchase,
please refer my case to the ombudsman
thank you

mc303

Just spoke to the case worker who said she was happy to refuse my claim on a telephone conversation made by the seller that the car had been repaired, i said your happy to make that judgement without any evidence of proof that the vehicle had been worked on, her reply was yes, i said, even tho i have provided evidence that the attempted repair had failed after they told you it was repaired? she replied, yes it's my opinion..... the case is now being submitted to an ombudsman, to be one step ahead in case my claim is rejected, who can i take to court for breach of contract? the seller or MBNA?

thank you

naedanger

mc303 wrote: »

... who can i take to court for breach of contract? the seller or MBNA?

Either at your choice as they are jointly and severally liable.

However I would suggest you take MBNA to court, because if you win you should have no difficulty getting paid.

mc303

as always, thank you naedanger

waamo

You can name them both on a claim form. As they have joint liability of one doesn't pay then the other is 100% in the frame.

mc303

waamo wrote: »

of one doesn't pay then the other is 100% in the frame.

Thank you waamo, not quite sure what you mean and how to go around doing this?