We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

RAC complaint - serious car damage

12346»

Comments

  • Grumpy_chap
    Grumpy_chap Posts: 18,588 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Maybe the debts 10 years ago are linked to the 10yo car with a seized engine.
  • Tanjawi
    Tanjawi Posts: 24 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 21 October 2021 at 11:16AM
    This has taken some time, but it is only fair to come back with an update given the input from you. To sum things up, it was a difficult one and both parties in this case had an argument. The claimant believed the car should not have been driven in that state, but the defendant was adamant the vehicle was already damaged when they turned up. The question was whether there was a mistake when the expert did not highlight the issues of the car at the scene and still proceeded to ask the claimant to drive it. Rather than continue with the battle, the case was assisted by a neutral party who helped us reach an agreement/compromise. Thank you all for your initial contribution regarding this issue.
  • photome
    photome Posts: 16,680 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Bake Off Boss!
    Thanks for returning ,can you share the compromise
  • pinkshoes
    pinkshoes Posts: 20,599 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Tanjawi said:
    This has taken some time, but it is only fair to come back with an update given the input from you. To sum things up, it was a difficult one and both parties in this case had an argument. The claimant believed the car should not have been driven in that state, but the defendant was adamant the vehicle was already damaged when they turned up. The question was whether there was a mistake when the expert did not highlight the issues of the car at the scene and still proceeded to ask the claimant to drive it. Rather than continue with the battle, the case was assisted by a neutral party who helped us reach an agreement/compromise. Thank you all for your initial contribution regarding this issue.
    So what was the compromise?

    You were the owner of an old Volvo with a knackered engine that would have no doubt been a right off due to the repair cost being more than the value.

    You were then perhaps wrongly advised by the RAC person to drive the car so this resulted in a dead (rather than knackered) engine which was a right off.

    So the compromise is surely the scrap value between a knackered engine old Volvo vs a dead engine old Volvo? Plus the cost of a door repair?
    Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
    Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')

    No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)
  • pinkshoes said:
    So what was the compromise?

    If he didn't say in his last post, he's not going to say now, is he?

Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.3K Life & Family
  • 258.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.