Need Urgent Advice and Help

ere Mods - would locking this thread until it's sorted not be a good idea ?

if peeps want to exchange info or slag each other off let them do it in private, that way the dealer isn't going to be forewarned and therefore forearmed

just a thought

Sean said:

ere Mods - would locking this thread until it's sorted not be a good idea ?

if peeps want to exchange info or slag each other off let them do it in private, that way the dealer isn't going to be forewarned and therefore forearmed

just a thought

Click to expand...

for once i agree with you.

juiceyv8 said:

for once i agree with you.

Click to expand...

fook off

CharlesY said:

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

Click to expand...

Only if you know a garage owner.

wammers said:

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.

Click to expand...

NO. The MoT question has already been ruled out by VOSA, so you can all forget that line of argument.

QUESTION: YES or NO - was that car FIT FOR PURPOSE WHEN JAMES BOUGHT IT?

NOTHING else is relevant to James's case, and Jame's case is the ONLY case we are dealing with.

The test in English Law is "proximate cause" - Google it and read the definition VERY CAREFULLY. Far too many events happened or could have happened between July and November, for any of the blame to fall on the MoT station EVEN IF it was a doubtful MoT, which I reckon it was not.

ONCE AGAIN, Yes or NO, was that car fit for purpose when it was sold to James?

CharlesY

wammers said:

Only if you know a garage owner.

Click to expand...

Mr Wammers, I don't understand that remark.
I know several garage owners.

Explain what you mean please?

CharlesY

CharlesY said:

NO. The MoT question has already been ruled out by VOSA, so you can all forget that line of argument.

QUESTION: YES or NO - was that car FIT FOR PURPOSE WHEN JAMES BOUGHT IT?

NOTHING else is relevant to James's case, and Jame's case is the ONLY case we are dealing with.

The test in English Law is "proximate cause" - Google it and read the definition VERY CAREFULLY. Far too many events happened or could have happened between July and November, for any of the blame to fall on the MoT station EVEN IF it was a doubtful MoT, which I reckon it was not.

ONCE AGAIN, Yes or NO, was that car fit for purpose when it was sold to James?

CharlesY

Click to expand...

Lucky Alan then. It must have been stood in salt water up to the undertray for the last three months. Totally disgusting.

CharlesY said:

NO. The MoT question has already been ruled out by VOSA, so you can all forget that line of argument.

QUESTION: YES or NO - was that car FIT FOR PURPOSE WHEN JAMES BOUGHT IT?

NOTHING else is relevant to James's case, and Jame's case is the ONLY case we are dealing with.

The test in English Law is "proximate cause" - Google it and read the definition VERY CAREFULLY. Far too many events happened or could have happened between July and November, for any of the blame to fall on the MoT station EVEN IF it was a doubtful MoT, which I reckon it was not.

ONCE AGAIN, Yes or NO, was that car fit for purpose when it was sold to James?

CharlesY

Click to expand...

It's been ruled out because of their rules as you well know. There is documentary evidence it was in or near that condition when it was tested. As you also well know. I await your answer on the brake pipe with baited breath.

wammers said:

It's been ruled out because of their rules as you well know. There is documentary evidence it was in or near that condition when it was tested. As you also well know. I await your answer on the brake pipe with baited breath.

Click to expand...

The correct word is BATED, not baited.
Your ability in the English language is on a par with your grasp of the inportant aspects of rest of this affair - poor.

I have already explained the tester's dilemma over brake pipes and corrosion.
The examiner carried out his task exactly as he was supposed to. And once again, I say that this is IRRELEVANT at this time.

YES or NO, was that car fit for purpose when it was sold to James?
If the answer is NO, as seems clear, the law provides James with a ready remedy, if only he would take it as he has been advised so many times.

CharlesY

CharlesY said:

The correct word is BATED, not baited.
Your ability in the English language is on a par with your grasp of the inportant aspects of rest of this affair - poor.

I have already explained the tester's dilemma over brake pipes and corrosion.
The examiner carried out his task exactly as he was supposed to. And once again, I say that this is IRRELEVANT at this time.

YES or NO, was that car fit for purpose when it was sold to James?
If the answer is NO, as seems clear, the law provides James with a ready remedy, if only he would take it as he has been advised so many times.

CharlesY

Click to expand...

Then the tester needs sacking. You don't know what you are talking about, so it's not much good asking you for an opinion. Get a piece of bundy tubing soak it in salt water for a few days then leave it outside. You will wait six months or longer for it to grow rusticles like that. You are just totally clueless. Your talking about and trying to defend something you do not in anyway understand. There is not an MOT tester in the country who would pass a brake pipe in that condition. Oh, sorry maybe one up north.

wammers said:

Lucky Alan then. It must have been stood in salt water up to the undertray for the last three months. Totally disgusting.

Click to expand...

SO WHAT????
Even if that was true, what would that have to do with James's case against the seller?

James only has to show that the car was not fit WHEN he bought it, not HOW it became unfit.

Can you not see that even after all these posts?

And in any event, how do you know it wasn't at some harbour somewhere launching boat trailers into the sea? We neither know nor care because it is IRRELEVANT.

Wammers, IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW THE CAR GOT UNROADWORTHY!
All that matters is that James can prove it wasn't fit for purpose when he bought it.


CharlesY

God this reads like war and piece, I have clearly stuck to the facts and tried to guide jay via Consumer Direct.

this thread has turned into "who has the biggest bollocks"

Jay if you want any further support/advice pm me or call me-I've had enough of wading through the Jeremy Kyle style bitching.

CharlesY said:

SO WHAT????
Even if that was true, what has it to do with James's case against the seller?

James only has to show that the car was not fit when he bought it, not HOW it became unfit.

Can you not see that even after all these posts?

CharlesY

Click to expand...

The car is unfit, it was also unfit when it was MOTd. You try to divert from that important point. It's not working mate. Glad you support Jay. But all your support for him is a diversion away from what started the chain of events, a dodgy MOT.

wammers said:

The car is unfit, it was also unfit when it was MOTd. You try to divert from that important point. It's not working mate. Glad you support Jay. But all your support for him is a diversion away from what started the chain of events, a dodgy MOT.

Click to expand...

is Jay going to be getting his money back from the MOT station or the dealer ?

wammers said:

The car is unfit, it was also unfit when it was MOTd. You try to divert from that important point. It's not working mate. Glad you support Jay. But all your support for him is a diversion away from what started the chain of events, a dodgy MOT.

Click to expand...

Wammers, if you were in Scotland and published that remark, you might well end up in court for it, and be a lot poorer when you left.

That is an outrageous remark to make. You are accusing someone of making a false MoT test! Wammers, when it was submitted for test, THEY FAILED THE CAR! They sent it away! It was repaired, resubmitted, retested, and passed. The owner drove it away, then some days later seems to have DRIVEN it to a LR Main Dealer, who took it in as a part exchange, but almost certainly only after giving it a look-over. A LANDROVER MAIN DEALER ACCEPTED IT AS A TRADE IN.

After that the movements of the car are not so clear till James got it, bywhich time it appears some quite serious damage had been inflicted on it, such as the Panhard Rod, chassis and this "bent axle" business. I wonder what that means, a "bent axle"?

The MoT station is never going to be found at fault, and is IRRELEVANT anyway.

CharlesY

Sean said:

is Jay going to be getting his money back from the MOT station or the dealer ?

Click to expand...

Sean,

The law is crystal clear.
James doesn't need to think about any of this except ONE thing:

YES or NO, was that car fit for purpose when the dealer sold it to him.
The DEALER, and ONLY the dealer, is responsible to James for the bad deal car. END OF STORY!

AFTERWARDS, the dealer can sue anyone he thinks he can pass the buck to, but that is none of James's concern, now or later.

I am trying very hard to keep this thread calm and factual, but some people stretch one's patience.

A lawyer told me only today,

"I only advise....YOU decide......if you don't like my advice ...that's fine by me 'cos I didn't get into the mess where I needed the advice."

I tend to agree with that.

CharlesY

CharlesY said:

Sean,

The law is crystal clear.
James doesn't need to think about any of this except ONE thing:

YES or NO, was that car fit for purpose when the dealer sold it to him.

Click to expand...

i'm agreeing with you - and trying to make it clear with as few words as possible to Wammers that the MOT station isn't going to be paying J any money - so why waste a single brain cell chasing them

J wants his money back (although that's a bit questionable) and it's from the DEALERS pocket that it'll be coming from

CharlesY said:

Sean,

The law is crystal clear.
James doesn't need to think about any of this except ONE thing:

YES or NO, was that car fit for purpose when the dealer sold it to him.
The DEALER, and ONLY the dealer, is responsible to James for the bad deal car. END OF STORY!

AFTERWARDS, the dealer can sue anyone he thinks he can pass the buck to, but that is none of James's concern, now or later.

I am trying very hard to keep this thread calm and factual, but some people stretch one's patience.

A lawyer told me only today,

"I only advise....YOU decide......if you don't like my advice ...that's fine by me 'cos I didn't get into the mess where I needed the advice."

I tend to agree with that.

CharlesY

Click to expand...

Well this has gone round FULL CIRCLE now & THE ONLY reason it degenerated into this MOT **** was YOU ASKED who the MOT station was ......& You STILL aint answered MY question .................WHY DID YOU NEED TO KNOW!!!!???? (Coz as you quite rightly say it is TOTALLY IRELEVENT to Jay's predicament)


Also I SAID the very same thing back 9 pages ago

Blimey, away from my PC for a day and had to go through pages to find out how Jay was getting on

Jay, IMHO if you wait until next Tuesday for a response, you will then reply and the solicitor will be away until the New Year.

If you don't act now you will lose the initiative if you haven't already.

Being crude it's time to sh*t or get off the pot.

Send him and his solicitor an emailed letter giving him seven days to refund your cash or go to the small claims court.

But you need to do it tomorrow so you can file the papers before the break.

£120 may seem a lot but you're gambling £120 against £5,000.

No brainer to me.

All the best.

reddwarf said:

Blimey, away from my PC for a day and had to go through pages to find out how Jay was getting on

Jay, IMHO if you wait until next Tuesday for a response, you will then reply and the solicitor will be away until the New Year.

If you don't act now you will lose the initiative if you haven't already.

Being crude it's time to sh*t or get off the pot.

Send him and his solicitor an emailed letter giving him seven days to refund your cash or go to the small claims court.

But you need to do it tomorrow so you can file the papers before the break.

£120 may seem a lot but you're gambling £120 against £5,000.

No brainer to me.

All the best.

Click to expand...

PERFECT!

If the car is as James says, with all those faults, then James WILL WIN.
That is the LAW.

CharlesY