£5,000 in England - £3,000 in Scotland
Fleeced.
- Thread starter WeeRascal
- Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Whitey1973
Member
- Posts
- 84
- Location
- The Fens
good luck feller I don't know enough about law etc to offer advice but I hope you every success .
I a long time ago had a similar chain of events and through lack of knowledge I lost out financially
good luck my fingers are crossed
I a long time ago had a similar chain of events and through lack of knowledge I lost out financially
good luck my fingers are crossed
Can we just have a quick reality check ?
Why aren`t you seeking professional legal advice given the amounts at stake ?
If you find a good litigation Solicitor from a Socttish firm, it doesn`t need to be a partner, to give you some advice and write you an initial letter for a sensible initial budget you can then decide whether you want to spend any more thereafter. Make sure you agree the budget upfront, ask for a quote for say an hpurs advice and an intial letter before action.
It looks as if it will not be easy to make recovery against the trader so professional advice could be a wise investment ? If I`d spent what you spent I`d be looking to buy some good advice and start on the right footing, but keep an eye on the spend.
And don`t hang around - the claim won`t get any easier the longer you leave it.
And it might be worth either a company search (if a limited company), a Dunn and Bradstreeet report and/or a credit check to see if you can gain any intelligence as to the trader`s finances, even if not absolutely up to date.
Finally , give Trading Standards local to the trader a call to see if he has any history with them
Why aren`t you seeking professional legal advice given the amounts at stake ?
If you find a good litigation Solicitor from a Socttish firm, it doesn`t need to be a partner, to give you some advice and write you an initial letter for a sensible initial budget you can then decide whether you want to spend any more thereafter. Make sure you agree the budget upfront, ask for a quote for say an hpurs advice and an intial letter before action.
It looks as if it will not be easy to make recovery against the trader so professional advice could be a wise investment ? If I`d spent what you spent I`d be looking to buy some good advice and start on the right footing, but keep an eye on the spend.
And don`t hang around - the claim won`t get any easier the longer you leave it.
And it might be worth either a company search (if a limited company), a Dunn and Bradstreeet report and/or a credit check to see if you can gain any intelligence as to the trader`s finances, even if not absolutely up to date.
Finally , give Trading Standards local to the trader a call to see if he has any history with them
I have sought some advice from a solicitor friend, and the letter has been sent, after some modifications he made to it.
On a related matter, here is a post I received from the Consumer Action group that relates to the sticky topic - crock of ****. You may find it interesting.
-----------I think that this is going to be a hard case for you to mount, not impossible, but hard. The tests you need to meet under the SOGA can generally be limited by the price paid and the expected quality of goods of that type; by that I mean that the standard you might expect of a new Landy is not that you will expect of a ten year old model. In many respects, you almost need to expect some problems. Sometimes what is said in an advert is a condition or term of the contract, sometimes it is a 'mere puff' and there is no right of redress attached. The trader might simply argue that the vehicle was in 'excellent condition' for its age and type, not as might be compared to a model with half the mileage and only 3 years old.
Even if you win, the having it repaired might go out of the window as it is disproportionate to the purchase price. I think that the argument might fly, as there is a 25% difference, but it is something to take into consideration.
I also think that the argument should be that it is not of satisfactory quality because it is not free from defects or that it is reasonably durable, not that it is not fit for the purpose. It is, it just needs repair. If you'd bought it to seat 10 people, then it would not be fit for the purpose but as it is, with repair, it is.
--------------
On a related matter, here is a post I received from the Consumer Action group that relates to the sticky topic - crock of ****. You may find it interesting.
-----------I think that this is going to be a hard case for you to mount, not impossible, but hard. The tests you need to meet under the SOGA can generally be limited by the price paid and the expected quality of goods of that type; by that I mean that the standard you might expect of a new Landy is not that you will expect of a ten year old model. In many respects, you almost need to expect some problems. Sometimes what is said in an advert is a condition or term of the contract, sometimes it is a 'mere puff' and there is no right of redress attached. The trader might simply argue that the vehicle was in 'excellent condition' for its age and type, not as might be compared to a model with half the mileage and only 3 years old.
Even if you win, the having it repaired might go out of the window as it is disproportionate to the purchase price. I think that the argument might fly, as there is a 25% difference, but it is something to take into consideration.
I also think that the argument should be that it is not of satisfactory quality because it is not free from defects or that it is reasonably durable, not that it is not fit for the purpose. It is, it just needs repair. If you'd bought it to seat 10 people, then it would not be fit for the purpose but as it is, with repair, it is.
--------------
You can see the issue in the CAG advice - proving any kind of statutory warranty claim, like fitness for purpose, is always harder on used goods. The test should therefore be that taking into account the reasonable wear and tear expected for a Land Rover of this age, affected by whatever was said to you about the car and/or the checks you did pre-purchase, is it still in the kind of condition that any reasonable person would have been entitled to expect ? The second test is, if it is not in that condition , to what extent is any exclusion or limitation of liability effective in law.
@IGP50 - thanks. This was my reply to the CAG post.
I understand that the car is old. I expected there to be faults and I found several (welded chassis, corroded wheels, very worn clutch). But £4,000 shouldn't just buy me a bag of bolts. That price is actually on the high side for a vehicle of that age and I paid the full asking price.
I was of the understanding that fit for purpose meant that it had to both deliver on both its everyday purpose (ie to drive) and its specific purpose (your 10 seater analogy).
As far as when the fault occurred is concerned, the 4x4 engineer has suggested that the Trader put the wrong bolt on the oil pump resulting in the fault, because he was the last person to work on that area to replace the oil and filter, plus he conducted this during a service, which is logged in the vehicle logbook. But he is not willing to commit this to paper and it is only implied.
I understand that the car is old. I expected there to be faults and I found several (welded chassis, corroded wheels, very worn clutch). But £4,000 shouldn't just buy me a bag of bolts. That price is actually on the high side for a vehicle of that age and I paid the full asking price.
I was of the understanding that fit for purpose meant that it had to both deliver on both its everyday purpose (ie to drive) and its specific purpose (your 10 seater analogy).
As far as when the fault occurred is concerned, the 4x4 engineer has suggested that the Trader put the wrong bolt on the oil pump resulting in the fault, because he was the last person to work on that area to replace the oil and filter, plus he conducted this during a service, which is logged in the vehicle logbook. But he is not willing to commit this to paper and it is only implied.
I think the satisfactory quality argument looks like the the one to concentrate on , and I also think the negligent servicing is potentially a good alternative, but you are going to need someone who is prepared to give you an experts report admissible in evidence, better than the suggestion you have now. If you are in a motoring organisation maybe they can help ? Sorry, I don`t know of any LandRover independents in Scotland who would be prepared to write an experts report.
You ought to find out as much as you can about the trader`s financial situation - regardless of proving the rights or wrongs of the case, if he looks like he is not worth suing, best find out now.
You ought to find out as much as you can about the trader`s financial situation - regardless of proving the rights or wrongs of the case, if he looks like he is not worth suing, best find out now.
I do have a written report - a full mechanical report, written by the owner of the 4X4 engineer, who also happens to be chairman of the Scottish Land Rover Owners Club. The only thing that he cannot say with conviction is that the Trader definitely caused the fault, but he certainly passed it on with one.
So instead of looking to show negligence by causing the fault, can you show negligence in servicing the car and not fixing the fault ? Does your expert`s report say that for the kind of work that was done any reasonably competent mechanic would have spotted the fault and fixed it ( with the implication that if they didn`t, maybe they caused it) ? The default is that any reasonably competent mechanic would have spotted the fault and at the very least brought it to the buyer`s attention. You need your expert`s report to be clear that the fault was such that any reasonably competent mechanic doing the type of work done by this trader should have found the fault.
I would also check with Trading Standards if I were you to see if the dealer has any relevant history either for sales or service. If you can show a pattern it might make your case easier.
I would also check with Trading Standards if I were you to see if the dealer has any relevant history either for sales or service. If you can show a pattern it might make your case easier.
I guess so. My letter has already gone out though, recorded delivery, and has been signed for as received. No worries though, I guess when he replies, I can follow it up with another letter to cover this? Or maybe I just go through the small claim process using what you've suggested as a claim? Anyway, thanks again.
They aren`t mutually exlcusive - so you could send another letter once the time limit has run out (I assume you gave him a time limit ?) then small claims if you get nowhere with the letters.
I don`t know how Scottish law calcualates damages but of its the same as England and you claim negligence then damages will be assessed to broadly try and put you in the position as if the negligence had never happened - when its a negligent service I can see that being difficult to put a number on. For that reason you might want to get your Solicitor friend to think about a second letter which claims breach of contract on the service as well as negligence. In England contractual damages are assessed to put you in the position as if the contract had been properly performed, and I can see that being easier to calculate.
I don`t know how Scottish law calcualates damages but of its the same as England and you claim negligence then damages will be assessed to broadly try and put you in the position as if the negligence had never happened - when its a negligent service I can see that being difficult to put a number on. For that reason you might want to get your Solicitor friend to think about a second letter which claims breach of contract on the service as well as negligence. In England contractual damages are assessed to put you in the position as if the contract had been properly performed, and I can see that being easier to calculate.
The term is "a position of equity"
