Pursuing a section 75 and Consumer rights act 2015?

[efpom]

So, what are the consequences of Lawdata Limited, not being a solicitor firm,* serving a letter before action, on behalf of someone else? In my view, it is of no effect.

My reason, shortly put is if the claimant is a company, acting as a litigant in person, that LBA can only be issued by an officer of the company. If a sole trader, it can only be issued by the sole trader.

Lawdata Limited are walking a tightrope here, as it's letter could well be viewed as, at least, pretending to be a solicitor when not entitled to do so - a criminal offence.

[Amethyst]

Hi guys another update,

I won the section 75 claim!
After my terrible experience I left the trader a review on a popular car sales website. A few days later I receive a letter from law data regarding defamation (images attached)

I have lots of evidence to back up my case and their own warranty provider sided with me! I just wanted to run it by you guys - surely I don't have to remove a legitimate review that may prevent other people getting problems?

To respond to "Our Client's position" as shown in the images - They've said I haven't provided a shred of evidence, they've been sent vehicle diagnostics, their original advert stating FSH, and an Audi print out completely refuting this plus a full vehicle diagnostic from a specialist confirming the issue. Their own warranty provider sided with me and launched an internal audit. And apparently because I haggled the price down a little I lost all my consumer rights?

As to their opportunity to inspect the vehicle - they refused to look at it unless I paid approx £400 for it to be towed to them (I'd already lost £250 on delivery)

I deal with most defamation claims that we receive at LB. Much as they like to sound official they haven't actually followed the preaction protocols or defamation act - plus they aren't a regulated law firm so can't act in their clients behalf. Plus it's full of typos.Will help you with a reply.
Do you have the final page please? And can you send me the review - email or pm ( admin@legalbeagles.info ).

[MIKE770]

Lawfare Solicitors Ltd is not Lawdata Ltd

correct

[des8]

You should reply stating only that your defence rests on three parts viz truth, honest opinion and publication on a matter of public interest as per The Defamation Act 2013http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...fences/enacted* and you do not anticipate receiving further communications from them.

Lawdata have been mentioned on Legalbeagles in the past (even on this thread I believe!)
They are known to vigorously support their client even when they are in the wrong, so be prepared for letters which some might consider threatening!

[Mjharper]

I deal with most defamation claims that we receive at LB. Much as they like to sound official they haven't actually followed the preaction protocols or defamation act - plus they aren't a regulated law firm so can't act in their clients behalf. Plus it's full of typos.Will help you with a reply.
Do you have the final page please? And can you send me the review - email or pm (admin@legalbeagles.info*).

PM sent. Thank you!

[Amethyst]

Thank you. They are slightly bizarre aren't they. I mean who writes "one single shred of evidence" in an official letter? Particularly when they themselves have received copies of the service history print outs, adverts saying FSH, and diagnostics reports, as well as being fully aware that the credit card company upheld your complaint.

Did the dealer actually pick the car up in the end?

Something along these lines.... up to you if you want to re-provide them with the docs you already sent them, I don't think it is necessary.

Dear LawData,

Your Client: xxxxxx
Your Reference: xxxxxxxx

I am in receipt of your letter entitled "Pre-Action Protocol Letter" which you claim to have sent on behalf of your Client, XXXXXXX Ltd.

Your clients claim is not accepted. I do not intend to remove the review from the Autotrader website nor sign your "declaration".The posted review is my honest opinion and is a true and accurate reflection of the issues surrounding the purchase of a vehicle from your client. You are fully aware of this as I have corresponded with you previously regarding the issues with the vehicle and my rejection of such under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I would be grateful if you could confirm on what basis you are acting for your client, as LawData Limited do not appear to be regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I am sure you are aware that conduct of litigation is a reserved activity and as such, should your client wish to continue, they should provide a formal letter of claim directly from themselves or their instructed solicitors. For the avoidance of doubt should any such claim be issued, it will be strongly defended.

I have received no notification from your client to state that you are authorised to act on their behalf. Therefore, unless confirmation is received from your client, I do not intend to enter into any further communication with you.

Sincerely

xxxxxx

Sorry about all the bloody 's...

[Mjharper]

Thank you very much for this! Do you think an email reply will suffice? I don't want to waste a stamp on them unless necessary!

Regarding the weird symbols - has the forum/site been updated recently? It seems like the encoding or database collation should be set to UTF-8. If it's wordpress/php for example you might need to switch your mysql from latin_ci to utf8

Hope this helps

[sarah_ccc]

Mjharper Would love to know how this concluded.

[Mjharper]

After the response here from amethyst I heard absolutely zilch from "lawdata" they are just scare tactics with zero substance!

[sarah_ccc]

Good to hear Mjharper . And did you get your money back? Did you use Chargeback or Section 75?

[Mjharper]

Yes! A lot of back and to but I had them bang to rights, got everything back section 75 really saved me

[sarah_ccc]

If using Section 75, do you just give up asking the merchant for the money, and just deal directly with your bank?

I hope you don't mind all my questions, but I may go down the Section 75 or chargeback path soon and there are many unknowns. It is nice to hear of actual, real world experiences.

[MIKE770]

retailer first if refuse then bank

[Mjharper]

If using Section 75, do you just give up asking the merchant for the money, and just deal directly with your bank?

I hope you don't mind all my questions, but I may go down the Section 75 or chargeback path soon and there are many unknowns. It is nice to hear of actual, real world experiences.

As they were an AA partner and refused point blank to liaise with them (the AA even provided evidence) it really helped my case. Not to mention I'd saved their advert stating a full service history and a PDF of it's actual history from the manufacturer. (this covered the 'not as advertised' aspect)

As much evidence as poss!

[sarah_ccc]

MIKE770 What do you do when retailer accepts there is a fault, but never fixes it? Every time we ask "when will you fix it", they come up with another excuse about one of their suppliers. They are just stringing us along. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...r-installation (sorry, I didn't intend to hijack someone else's post)