General: Help!! have I bought a lemon?!?

[outnumbered]

yes good luck and hope its in your favour
mike

[PaulieOfArrod]

Letter I've sent today, names changed to protect the guilty...

Time to start reading the court papers guidance...this will be a learning experience if nothing else.

"Letter Before Action: Sale Of Goods Act, 1979

Volvo S60, reg...., purchased 12/11/2013

Sent: Special Delivery

Dear Sirs,
Further to my telephone conversations today with Frank, this is to confirm matters as I understand them, and confirm my intentions.

Your offer to me has been to look into obtaining a second hand gearbox and then, if you feel it is practical and financially viable, paying for this to be fitted to the car as a replacement for the faulty unit. You have asked me to obtain information from the car to help you source the correct model of gearbox.

I have explained that, while I appreciate your offer and efforts to resolve this, because of various concerns I have (including fuel, time & inconvenience, and concerns about the reliability of any repair), I would prefer to receive a refund.

It appears that we have reached the following impasse: Your understanding is that you have an absolute legal right to attempt repairs to the car, irrespective of any inconvenience placed on me. This, however, contradicts the advice I have received from the CAB Consumer Helpline. They have told me that any attempt at repair or replacement should not cause me additional cost or inconvenience. The proposed next step of replacing the gearbox is certain to cause me significant additional cost and inconvenience. Furthermore, the CAB Helpine advised me that I was within my rights to reject the car (under the Sale Of Goods Act 1979) and obtain a refund when I first attempted to do so on 13/11/13.

You have advised me that if I am not willing to facilitate your further attempt to resolve the fault with the gearbox / transmission then you will not provide a refund, and I must then take whatever action I think is best.

I hereby give you notice therefore (regretfully) that I will be filing a claim with the County Court at the earliest opportunity, for a refund of my cash payment of £1499, plus any costs as and where allowed.

If you change your position on this matter then on receipt of the refund I will of course halt proceedings. I request that, in the interests of clarity for the court, any further communications are put in writing. I would also appreciate it if you could confirm by return the name of the individual who will be handling this matter on behalf of ABC Garage. I also trust that if you do not feel that the above description of matters is accurate, then you will let me know.


Yours sincerely,

[Norfolk Jim]

Well done Paul

Very sorry you had to go to this.

I had a brief chat with my nephew who is a solicitor with top London firm and due to work on the Hillsborough disaster. He told me you have been extremely fair and are fully within your rights for a refund. In his view from my brief description he cannot see any judge (if it actually gets to that point as he thinks when the garage actually gets the papers of fact they'll try and work a deal out with you) finding in favour of the garage. He did say have you got a written receipt for the money you paid with any business name at the top and a signature??

All the very best and do be brief in your letters so no anomalies if that makes sense i.e use of the words will and not may or should...............

[PaulieOfArrod]

Thanks very much Jim,
Very kind of you getting his feedback. Yes, I did get a receipt for the cash paid. All three letters have gone recorded delivery. I've got copies of the receipts for the flush they arranged and the paperwork from the Volvo dealer.

I don't think there is anything unclear in the letter, but to be honest I was wary about coming accross too hostile or confident, in case a judge might look less favourably on me for it. I'm just starting to look at some small claims guidance and it does stress you should do everything possible to resolve it without court, and I'm sure many people probably wouldn't being as quick as this at threatening or starting proceedings. I don't want the judge thinking that I was too gung-ho or uncompromising.

I am hopeful that they will look at this situation and decide that they are better off just giving me a refund. I want a quick resolution, and that's actually why I'm going to press on and file the claim. I'm curious to see what the trader's letter says, but I can only expect it will be a slightly softer version of Franks stance on the phone, i.e. "please let us repair / replace the gearbox".

[volvorocks]

Originally Posted by Norfolk Jim

I had a brief chat with my nephew who is a solicitor with top London firm and due to work on the Hillsborough disaster. He told me you have been extremely fair and are fully within your rights for a refund. In his view from my brief description he cannot see any judge (if it actually gets to that point as he thinks when the garage actually gets the papers of fact they'll try and work a deal out with you) finding in favour of the garage. He did say have you got a written receipt for the money you paid with any business name at the top and a signature??

All the very best and do be brief in your letters so no anomalies if that makes sense i.e use of the words will and not may or should...............

Hi Paul

I agree with Jim. I fully agree when writing letters that the briefer they are the better, containing only succint points, worded correctly. The less you write the less the other side have to 'pick apart'

I have dealt with issues like you mention over the years and what I have always done is write in accordance,wait - issue proceedings.

You will possibly find, as I have always done, that the seller will settle once they receive notice of court proceedings. However if the seller is for want of a better word 'dubious' then such issuance may not faze them as they may already have a drawer full of judgements!!!

All the best with it

[volvorocks]

Originally Posted by PaulieOfArrod

I was wary about coming accross too hostile or confident, in case a judge might look less favourably on me for it. I'm just starting to look at some small claims guidance and it does stress you should do everything possible to resolve it without court, and I'm sure many people probably wouldn't being as quick as this at threatening or starting proceedings. I don't want the judge thinking that I was too gung-ho or uncompromising.

Hi Paul

It is all about what is reasonable. It could be suggested you have been more than reasonable.

Courts do frown on people that 'rush to court for answers' without fully exploring potential solutions to a problem, although it appears clear that you have explored all avenues and arrived (quickly) at an understanding as to what the issue is and that it is not an easy fix. Therefore a refund of what you paid is necessary and correct. Reject the car.

Regards

[PaulieOfArrod]

Yeah, I feel like, despite how Frank wants to bully me into his differing view on it, it is reasonable, under the circumstances, for me to insist on a refund.

Regarding the letter, I take all those points, but I would just add that I felt that, as the trader has never put anything in writing so far, I wanted to summarise their position as Frank expressed it on the phone to me today. They might send me a letter today that twists what I've said on the phone, or try to make themselves look more reasonable than they were on the phone..but if they do, hopefully I've pre-empted it and clarified the key issue in my lette today.

Other than that, I've only said what I think is necessary, in terms of what I want, why I want it, and the fact that I'd like everything to be on the record as of now.

I'll try and keep it brief as of now. I think the key points and evidence are clear enough.

You can't help wondering though how much time and effort they are going to go to in this situation, trying to outmanoeuvre me or pick apart my arguments. For the amount of profit they are trying to protect here (especially if they are looking to replace a gearbox), what are they planning to do - instruct Michael Mansfield QC? I guess that's it, if it does end up in court, it will be a bit surreal and ridiculous.

[Rossi-fan]

Hi Paul. Its regrettable its all come to this, but I'm not surprised. You're obviously dealing with someone who is nothing short of a cowboy. Obviously a real PITA for you, but if you hadn't taken this action from the outset, you would surely be stuck with a useless car. Hope all goes well.

Cheers

Jeff

[volvorocks]

Hi Paul


I mention a point in my comments, although perhaps not too clearly. State that you reject the car in any communications. Stop using it! If you continue to use the car, it will weaken your position and strengthen theirs and any decision the court may make will reflect this.

Issues like yours can sometimes drag on and on and on with no end in sight, so do not worry about you coming across as 'too confident or hostile' in any written communications. The assertive straight to the point formal slightly hostile letter gets results!

If you need a pointer in writing back to the trader once you receive his response drop me a PM and I will help. I have helped a few members in here with one or two issues ''as they will so to attest''.....!!!!...

All the best

[PaulieOfArrod]

This is a good point. I have made a decision that I can't use the car anymore since taking it to the main dealer. It could fail at any time.

I'm now hunting for a new car in the expectation that this could drag on and I need a reliable vehicle now whatever happens.

I should clarify this and inform the trader of this (that I'm not using the car since getting the conf from the main dealer) clearly. I will do so in my next letter to them. Thanks for the offer, I wll PM you when I get the letter from the trader.