Consumer Rights Act 2015

fred246

Say the car was worth £500 and they have made it worthless by their incompetence then you claim £500. You need to send a letter before action to them. You need to say that you want £500 off them as that is your loss and give them say 21 days to send you a cheque. State that if you have not received it by then you will start legal proceedings. The court fee is £35. So they will have to pay £535 after you have claimed. They then either pay £535 or go to court to argue. If you go there is just a judge there and it's like judge Judy or Judge Rinder without the cameras or the audience.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

fred246 wrote: »

Say the car was worth £500 and they have made it worthless by their incompetence then you claim £500. You need to send a letter before action to them. You need to say that you want £500 off them as that is your loss and give them say 21 days to send you a cheque. State that if you have not received it by then you will start legal proceedings. The court fee is £35. So they will have to pay £535 after you have claimed. They then either pay £535 or go to court to argue. If you go there is just a judge there and it's like judge Judy or Judge Rinder without the cameras or the audience.

And no guarantee he'll win.

fred246

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

And no guarantee he'll win.

No judges are certainly a bit random. However I am sure a judge can imagine driving a car to a garage and then receiving a phone call later to say that the car had been trashed and was now undriveable. A good garage would be phoning to say it was repaired and ready to be collected.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

fred246 wrote: »

No judges are certainly a bit random. However I am sure a judge can imagine driving a car to a garage and then receiving a phone call later to say that the car had been trashed and was now undriveable. A good garage would be phoning to say it was repaired and ready to be collected.

He drove a faulty car to the garage asked for a diagnosis and it's uneconomical to repair.

What have the garage done wrong?

waamo

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

So how do you question any evidence you disagree with?

In a small claim everything goes through the judge. Both sides have to show everything they are going to rely on well in advance of the case.

You don't get to question the other party at all. The judge does all that.

BoGoF

usedtoname wrote: »

It wasn't a danger to other road users, so no.

So you had a car that could cut out at anytime and you don't think that is dangerous?

I thought you were using 'logic'

fred246

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

What have the garage done wrong?

Well they certainly made it worse. Your car is supposed to be better after a visit to a garage. I personally expect garages to wreck cars which is why I keep mine well away, however the generally accepted view is that garages are supposed to make cars better.

waamo

fred246 wrote: »

Well they certainly made it worse. Your car is supposed to be better after a visit to a garage. I personally expect garages to wreck cars which is why I keep mine well away, however the generally accepted view is that garages are supposed to make cars better.

I've never heard of a car becoming better after a diagnostic test.

born_again

custardy wrote: »

2 days and still no wiser to whats actually wrong/broken/unusable?

Do you ever think we will... :rotfl:

Why let the facts get in the way.:T

fred246

waamo wrote: »

I've never heard of a car becoming better after a diagnostic test.

It's like your loved one going in for an Xray and getting a phone call to say they are in the mortuary. "Well they couldn't have been very well anyway if they were having an Xray".