Resolved matter

AdrianC

LittleElf16 said:

Is the repairing garage allowed to disclose information about one of its customers and customers vehicles to someone else? Apparently the Defendant has told my engineer that he is ‘friends’ with my repairing garage and they send him a lot of work, obviously if I knew this before I would never have used said repairing garage. 

Here's a thought... Maybe he's telling lies about that, just as much as he is about the recording?

The only thing that matters is what he submitted as his defence to the case. He already did that ages ago. Nothing else is relevant, and if he starts waving it around, it'll be ignored.

If you haven't already read this, do so... Especially sections 5 and 8.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/CJC/Publications/Other+papers/Small+Claims+Guide+for+web+FINAL.pdf

LittleElf16

Thank you. No the Defendant isn’t lying about contacting my engineer and the garage as it was the engineer who has telephoned and told me and advised me to make the Judge aware of the same. 

AdrianC

LittleElf16 said:

Thank you. No the Defendant isn’t lying about contacting my engineer and the garage as it was the engineer who has telephoned and told me and advised me to make the Judge aware of the same. 

Yes, he contacted them.

But is he lying about recording that contact?
Is he lying about being friends with and a regular customer of that garage?
Even if he is, would they have given him any information?
Even if they did, how is that helpful to his case... assuming your claim, expert witness report, and garage invoices are accurate...?

Assuming you bought the car near to home, and the garage is near to home, it's entirely likely that two people both in the motor trade know of each other.

That doesn't affect whether the car was supplied in a condition commensurate with its age, price, apparent condition - assuming this all went down within six months of the purchase, you're merely claiming that there was a fault outside of those expectations. He needs to show it simply wasn't there at the time of purchase - or that it's reasonable to expect for a used car of that age, price, apparent condition.

LittleElf16

Yes everything I have done is accurate.
The repairing garage was actually out of town as I needed a specialist, they could be lying. 

 Also  the MOT as when I bought the car in the JULY the MOT was until November only. The used car dealership said to me to take it away and bring it back 11 days later for a fresh MOT as I obviously did not want to purchase a car with only 4 months MOT on. When the vehicle had been to a third party garage for MOT it came back as ‘do not drive this car has dangerous defects’ it was the tyres. I had driven it for 11 days at this point.   They stated they carry out a pre-inspection of the vehicle. This obviously wasn’t picked up and I drove it for 11 days with it being dangerous.

Supersonos

LittleElf16 said:

The Defendant then stated at the ‘end’ of the call that he had recorded it. 

In that case it will not be admissible in court, so no need to worry about that.

Don't let him intimidate you.  Just carry on as you were.

AdrianC

LittleElf16 said:

Also  the MOT as when I bought the car in the JULY the MOT was until November only. The used car dealership said to me to take it away and bring it back 11 days later for a fresh MOT as I obviously did not want to purchase a car with only 4 months MOT on. When the vehicle had been to a third party garage for MOT it came back as ‘do not drive this car has dangerous defects’ it was the tyres. I had driven it for 11 days at this point.   They stated they carry out a pre-inspection of the vehicle. This obviously wasn’t picked up and I drove it for 11 days with it being dangerous.

That's it? The tyres? Did you not check the tyres pre-purchase or at any time in those 11 days?

All of this is over the cost of a set of tyres?

waamo

No surprises or ambushes are allowed in court. You will have had a letter telling you anything you rely on must be submitted two weeks before the hearing. If he hasn't complied with that then he can't use it.

LittleElf16

The garage were I have took my car to for repairs were I was a customer has disclosed all my information to the Defendant without my consent. The repairing garage has done a statement for the Defendant (which I have not seen) stating the repairs I have had carried out as I have now found out they are friends with each other. 

LittleElf16

AdrianC said:

LittleElf16 said:

Also  the MOT as when I bought the car in the JULY the MOT was until November only. The used car dealership said to me to take it away and bring it back 11 days later for a fresh MOT as I obviously did not want to purchase a car with only 4 months MOT on. When the vehicle had been to a third party garage for MOT it came back as ‘do not drive this car has dangerous defects’ it was the tyres. I had driven it for 11 days at this point.   They stated they carry out a pre-inspection of the vehicle. This obviously wasn’t picked up and I drove it for 11 days with it being dangerous.

That's it? The tyres? Did you not check the tyres pre-purchase or at any time in those 11 days?

All of this is over the cost of a set of tyres?

No absolutely not. Thats a minor thing what’s up with the vehicle its had a major fault

Car_54

LittleElf16 said:

Even with it being a civil matter? The engineer isn’t appearing in Court on his report is being submitted but is willing to attend court if the Judge wants him to. 

Civil or criminal makes no difference. The laws on witness intimidation, perjury, perverting justice, etc. apply.