Need Urgent Advice and Help

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sirus said:
Im pretty sure Portugals is yearly too
Click to expand...

Spain is test at four years old, every two years until ten years old, then every year.
Portugal is test at four years old, every two years until seven years old (how do they do that) then yearly after that.
 
Jay, you have blown it. You would not take the advice you were given on DAY-ONE, and time after time thereafter, and now it is many weeks later, and the other side know they have you beaten. You are an amateur up against professionals. You have lost. You are stuck with that car, sorry about that, and if you get a penny from the seller I will be surprised. Remember, your solicitor's fees are building up too.

So why this statement then?
I fail to see how he has lost ???
 
stchris356 said:
Jay, you have blown it. You would not take the advice you were given on DAY-ONE, and time after time thereafter, and now it is many weeks later, and the other side know they have you beaten. You are an amateur up against professionals. You have lost. You are stuck with that car, sorry about that, and if you get a penny from the seller I will be surprised. Remember, your solicitor's fees are building up too.

So why this statement then?
I fail to see how he has lost ???
Click to expand...

As I see it, it seems to be five or six WEEKS since he first took the car and realised it was a duffer.

In all that time, where has he got to?
Nowhere.
After the FIRST rejection by the seller, Jay could (and I think SHOULD) have INSTRUCTED his solicitor to raise a civil action in the courts. In fact, this can be done by Jay himself up to some limit which in England may be £5,000. The law up here is not the same.

So as time passes, the seller is emboldened to stick it out. He's possibly got lots of similar cases on the go. He may know how weak "punters" are about these things. I bet jay gives up before the seller does, and remember, who has the cash, and who has the dud car.

If you don't agree that Jay has lost or is losing, please explain to me how Jay is winning, because I can't see it at this stage.

CharlesY
 
CharlesY said:
What?
You are twisted, Wammers.
You reckon I stuck a knife into Jay? Good gracious!
I don't think so. I went out of my way to help Jay contact Mr Mills, the one person who could AND DID provide useful Post-Test information about that car. Then later Jay himself posted some unwise comments. Bad idea.

Remember this - the MoT garage is COMPLETELY BLAMELESS in this case, and the garage has NO PART WHATEVER in the matter of Jay and the seller of the car involved.

You Mr Wammers, and Jay, seem not to be able to keep your minds on the ONE REAL AIM, which should have been to get that dodgy car returned RIGHT AWAY, and the cash refunded..
It isn't I who is in a hole Mr Wammers - it may be you, for making a fool of yourself, and for not seeing when it is time for you to calm down and back off. You have provided NOTHING of value to Jay so far, whereas others of us have, including Mr Mills.

Once again, everyone has to accept, - the MoT garage is COMPLETELY BLAMELESS in this case. There is NOTHING to be gained by sidetracking about the MoT. The simple fact is that when Jay bought that car it was NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE, and the garage which did the MoT in July are not in any way to blame for that. This is a matter ONLY between the seller and the buyer.

Once again, I remind you all, CAVEAT EMPTOR - let the BUYER beware.

Oh yes, Photographs ... if VOSA take pictures they will be properly logged and proven in a manner the courts will probably be able to accept as evidence. Amateur snaps may not be as easy to introduce as evidence, even in a civil case. For a start, what independent proof exists they are even pics of bits of the car involved on the date and time concerned?


Please Mr Wammers, calm down, and stop trying to act like a big shot. You aren't one of those, as is so plain to all those who have read your posts. As I see it, you have no locus to be attributing blame in this case, in which you are not involved other than out of curiosity and as a fellow member of LandyZone. By all means try to help Jay, but that requires you all MUST get back on the rails and chase the ONE AIM that matters - Getting the car returned and a full refund. NOTHING else matters.

Don't chase spooks guys! Chase the seller who sold a dud car.

CharlesY
Click to expand...

One comment, take a look at photo of rear brake pipe and tell me it's ok in your opinion. That that amount of rust has appeared in the last three months. That you would pass that on an MOT. If your answer to any of those is yes, there is no point in talking to me, we live in different worlds.
 
CharlesY said:
As I see it, it seems to be five or six WEEKS since he first took the car and realised it was a duffer.

In all that time, where has he got to?
Nowhere.
After the FIRST rejection by the seller, Jay could (and I think SHOULD) have INSTRUCTED his solicitor to raise a civil action in the courts. In fact, this can be done by Jay himself up to some limit which in England may be £5,000. The law up here is not the same.

So as time passes, the seller is emboldened to stick it out. He's possibly got lots of similar cases on the go. He may know how weak "punters" are about these things. I bet jay gives up before the seller does, and remember, who has the cash, and who has the dud car.

If you don't agree that Jay has lost or is losing, please explain to me how Jay is winning, because I can't see it at this stage.

CharlesY
Click to expand...

No Idon't agree Jay has lost neither do I think he has won..........yet!

My advice to him is stop listening to their solicitor, now, and take him to court because your right this has gone on for far too long and it's time for him to take charge.
 
CharlesY said:
As I see it, it seems to be five or six WEEKS since he first took the car and realised it was a duffer.

In all that time, where has he got to?
Nowhere.
After the FIRST rejection by the seller, Jay could (and I think SHOULD) have INSTRUCTED his solicitor to raise a civil action in the courts. In fact, this can be done by Jay himself up to some limit which in England may be £5,000. The law up here is not the same.

So as time passes, the seller is emboldened to stick it out. He's possibly got lots of similar cases on the go. He may know how weak "punters" are about these things. I bet jay gives up before the seller does, and remember, who has the cash, and who has the dud car.

If you don't agree that Jay has lost or is losing, please explain to me how Jay is winning, because I can't see it at this stage.

CharlesY
Click to expand...


I don't really understand how all this got sidetracked on the the MOT, but I fear you are right, the more time that passes without the main issue of an unroadworthy vehicle being passed off by the trader, the less likely it is that the case will be resolved in the favour of the purchaser. The traders solicitor is doing a good job of delaying and at the same time manouvering Jay into a position where he will appear to be behaving unreasonably in the eyes of the court.
All is not yet lost, but as sure as hell that is the way it's heading.
Jay sit up, take notice, get a county court summons issued, don't wait for more delays by the solicitor.
 
I agree i think jay should have issued a small claims summons against the dealer a couple of weeks ago to show that he is wiling to show the dealer he is prepared to see him in court .I apologise to jay if he has already started proceedings
 
Datatek said:
I don't really understand how all this got sidetracked on the the MOT, but I fear you are right, the more time that passes without the main issue of an unroadworthy vehicle being passed off by the trader, the less likely it is that the case will be resolved in the favour of the purchaser. The traders solicitor is doing a good job of delaying and at the same time manouvering Jay into a position where he will appear to be behaving unreasonably in the eyes of the court.
All is not yet lost, but as sure as hell that is the way it's heading.
Jay sit up, take notice, get a county court summons issued, don't wait for more delays by the solicitor.
Click to expand...

And just when did the vehicle become, to use your word, unroadworthy?
 
bigald said:
I agree i think jay should have issued a small claims summons against the dealer a couple of weeks ago to show that he is wiling to show the dealer he is prepared to see him in court .I apologise to jay if he has already started proceedings
Click to expand...

Jay should have been on the trader's doorstep weeks ago, with half a dozen mates, and declining to leave until cash had been exchanged for keys. You can bet your bottom dollar that's the sort of thing that what would have happened if the boot had been on the other foot.

The trader is now just trying to complicate and delay things in the hope that Jay will give up or accept a few bodged repairs from his tame mechanic.
Looks like he's winning too.
 
Here is legal advice free of charge, not from me, from a lawyer:

The one thing he has not yet done which is critical is that he has not yet....so far as I can see....formally rejected the vehicle and requested a refund of his money. HE MUST DO SO WITHOUT DELAY.

Says it all for me. We were all saying more or less that on the first day.
DO NOT BE DIVERTED.

CharlesY
 
"Within 6 months - you are still covered by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 - not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality - take it back and say it is unfit for purpose and you want it fixed FOC within *** days or your money back.

The obligations to provide goods of satisfactory quality are more or less the same as those stipulated under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (see BIF 142 A Guide to the Sale of Goods Act 1979). The Regulations also require traders to provide remedies where goods are not of satisfactory quality.

The effect of the Regulations is to create an automatic presumption, in favour of the consumer, that any defect in a product manifesting itself within six months is 'inherent'. This means that the defect was present at the time of sale. The burden of proof is on the trader to prove otherwise. The Regulations also provide a time limit of six years (five years in Scotland), during which period any claims for compensation may be submitted to a court.

I think you will find that the peeps wot sold yu the car are legally obliged to supply you with a motor - unless yu bought it, knowing that it was defective. "

that dont mean its a good idea tho.

stop listening to barrack-room lawyers and get yoself a real one!
 
I went out of my way to help Jay contact Mr Mills,
Click to expand...
And the burning question is ....WHY!??? ..(its **** all to do with Jay) its "Condition at purchase" is between the MOT station (assuming THEY SOLD IT) & the Purchaser i.e. THE DEALER that sold it Jay!!!

the MoT garage is COMPLETELY BLAMELESS in this case
Click to expand...
UTTER BOLLOCKS!!!!


Please Mr Wammers, calm down, and stop trying to act like a big shot. You aren't one of those, as is so plain to all those who have read your posts. As I see it, you have no locus to be attributing blame in this case, in which you are not involved other than out of curiosity and as a fellow member of LandyZone.Don't chase spooks guys! Chase the seller who sold a dud car.
Click to expand...
Try Practicing wot you preach


Jay, you have blown it. You would not take the advice you were given on DAY-ONE, and time after time thereafter, and now it is many weeks later, and the other side know they have you beaten. You are an amateur up against professionals. You have lost. You are stuck with that car, sorry about that, and if you get a penny from the seller I will be surprised. Remember, your solicitor's fees are building up too.
Click to expand...
You really are "A Piece of Work" you are aint yer ?? What do you do if you find a Pensioner on the ground in this weather ??? Walk over & tell him he's a Silly old sod fer coming out in icy conditions ???
 
If the OP doesnt pull his finger out his arse and this out. HE will be the one to loose out not the scumbag seller that gives honest peeps a bad name.
 
CharlesY said:
Here is legal advice free of charge, not from me, from a lawyer:

The one thing he has not yet done which is critical is that he has not yet....so far as I can see....formally rejected the vehicle and requested a refund of his money. HE MUST DO SO WITHOUT DELAY.

Says it all for me. We were all saying more or less that on the first day.
DO NOT BE DIVERTED.

CharlesY
Click to expand...


Surprised as you maybe i agree with that.
 
the hooded claw said:
You really are "A Piece of Work" you are aint yer ?? What do you do if you find a Pensioner on the ground in this weather ??? Walk over & tell him he's a Silly old sod fer coming out in icy conditions ???
Click to expand...

You tell them that after you have covered them with a blanket and phoned the ambulance;)
 
the hooded claw said:
And the burning question is ....WHY!??? ..(its **** all to do with Jay) its "Condition at purchase" is between the MOT station (assuming THEY SOLD IT) & the Purchaser i.e. THE DEALER that sold it Jay!!!

UTTER BOLLOCKS!!!!



Try Practicing wot you preach


You really are "A Piece of Work" you are aint yer ?? What do you do if you find a Pensioner on the ground in this weather ??? Walk over & tell him he's a Silly old sod fer coming out in icy conditions ???
Click to expand...


Abuse is not helpful.
 
Datatek said:
That is a pretty pointless comment, but according to you, before it was sold to Jay. Certainly within 2 weeks of the sale according to Jay.
Click to expand...

Don't talk daft. The lad has been sold an unroadworthy vehicle (your word). When did it become unroadworthy? Five minutes before he bought it. Ten minutes after he bought it. Did it become unroadwrthy on the way down from Scotland or on the dealers forecourt. Or was it unroadworthy when it got the MOT certificate? No MOT, no part exchange, no sale in auction, dealer does not buy it, Jay cannot buy it. There is a start and end to everything this stated with and MOT that should never have been. That is why the MOT is not just a side issue. It is not as important now things have moved on, but everything started with it.
 
wammers said:
And just when did the vehicle become, to use your word, unroadworthy?
Click to expand...


It is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT WHEN IT BECAME UNROADWORTHY!

The ONLY relevant fact needing proved is that on the day James was sold that car, it was NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.

That is IT - END!

DO NOT BE DIVERTED!!!!!

CharlesY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rockingit
L322 How big a job is it to replace the upper rear wishbone?
Replies
17
Views
1K
Rockingit
Rockingit
Pablo63
Help please Parking aid issues.
Replies
12
Views
387
Pablo63
Pablo63
B
P38 diesel FIP leak
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
4K
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
F
Bang and a whir……
Replies
0
Views
164
FifiLander
F
Wizard2003
Update, Need Urgent help!
Replies
14
Views
979
Wizard2003
Wizard2003
Back
Top