Tweet
Barnes v Car Giant Ltd – How I took on the world’s largest car dealership and WON
Firstly I would like to thank forum members; DES8 for his help in drafting my rejection letters and ROB for his help in drafting my Particular of Claim. Your advice and input was truly invaluable… Thank you!
After three cancellations (one by the Defendant and two due to the Corona virus) my claim was finally heard on 8 September 2020 before District Judge McCormack at Willesden County court. ‘I‘ the Claimant represented myself, and the Defendant’s representative was an employee, they did not have a Solicitor present.
Below you will find an overview of my case and I have also included the following attachments that you may find useful:
OVERVIEW:
Final Right to Reject - Second tier remedy (after the first 28 days, but within the first six months of ownership)
I purchased a used Peugeot RCZ Red Carbon motor vehicle from the Defendant for the sum of £12,476.92 (including fees) on 6 January 2018 with a mileage reading of 32,828.
Between 11 February 2018 and 21 June 2018 the vehicle was diagnosed as having no less than four faults. The dealer repaired the first three faults (via a third party) but was unable to repair the forth fault.
Because the Dealer was unable to repair the existing fault (forth fault) I rejected the vehicle under The Consumer Rights Act 2015. At the time of my rejection the vehicle had a mileage reading of 49,416 and a market value of £10,500.00.
The Dealer had offered to repay £8,155.00 based on a deduction of use at 25 pence per mile. I contended that such a deduction was excessive and would result in a significant financial loss to me because the amount offered is much less than the market value of the vehicle being £10,500.00 at the time of rejection and as such the Defendant's offer does not constitute as remedy for breach of contract.
‘I’ and the Dealer then participated in an ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Service. This ADR service did not alter the dealer’s offer, nor did I find it helpful and to be honest I found it a complete waste of time; thus I would not recommend it.
NOTES: There was no set principle that defines the amount of monies a dealer can deduct for ‘fair use’, thus this was a test case, and one that I was successful in; arguing that the Dealer’s offer to deduct 25 pence per mile was excessive!
The Judge used the information contained within the Admiral Car Finance Document (see attached; page 54, Title; Excess mileage charge) as the basis for his award. He did not refer to my own calculations nor any of the vehicle valuations that I had obtained online. If you ever have the misfortune of having to take your claim to court over the amount charged for fair usage? then I thoroughly recommend that you include this Admiral document in your bundle!
I was awarded the Market value of the motor vehicle based on the information contained within the attached Admiral document. I was also awarded my personal losses (paragraph 8, POC) + costs, traveling expenses and my attendance allowance. Despite my request, I was not awarded interest, due to the fact that up until the hearing I still had use of the car.
It is also worth noting that the Dealer tried to argue that their offer to deduct 25ppm was far less than the 45ppm HMRC mileage rate. The Judge responded by informing the Defendant (Dealer) that the HMRC rate was made up of a collection of elements that were non comparable, thus he rejected their argument.
Please refer to the attached documents for a better understanding of my case and your rights as a consumer.
Firstly I would like to thank forum members; DES8 for his help in drafting my rejection letters and ROB for his help in drafting my Particular of Claim. Your advice and input was truly invaluable… Thank you!
After three cancellations (one by the Defendant and two due to the Corona virus) my claim was finally heard on 8 September 2020 before District Judge McCormack at Willesden County court. ‘I‘ the Claimant represented myself, and the Defendant’s representative was an employee, they did not have a Solicitor present.
Below you will find an overview of my case and I have also included the following attachments that you may find useful:
- My Particulars of Claim.
- My calculations for fair usage (Pages 68-69 of my Witness Statement).
- Admiral Car Finance document, (a very important document that formed part of my argument and provided the basis for my win).
OVERVIEW:
Final Right to Reject - Second tier remedy (after the first 28 days, but within the first six months of ownership)
I purchased a used Peugeot RCZ Red Carbon motor vehicle from the Defendant for the sum of £12,476.92 (including fees) on 6 January 2018 with a mileage reading of 32,828.
Between 11 February 2018 and 21 June 2018 the vehicle was diagnosed as having no less than four faults. The dealer repaired the first three faults (via a third party) but was unable to repair the forth fault.
Because the Dealer was unable to repair the existing fault (forth fault) I rejected the vehicle under The Consumer Rights Act 2015. At the time of my rejection the vehicle had a mileage reading of 49,416 and a market value of £10,500.00.
The Dealer had offered to repay £8,155.00 based on a deduction of use at 25 pence per mile. I contended that such a deduction was excessive and would result in a significant financial loss to me because the amount offered is much less than the market value of the vehicle being £10,500.00 at the time of rejection and as such the Defendant's offer does not constitute as remedy for breach of contract.
‘I’ and the Dealer then participated in an ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Service. This ADR service did not alter the dealer’s offer, nor did I find it helpful and to be honest I found it a complete waste of time; thus I would not recommend it.
NOTES: There was no set principle that defines the amount of monies a dealer can deduct for ‘fair use’, thus this was a test case, and one that I was successful in; arguing that the Dealer’s offer to deduct 25 pence per mile was excessive!
The Judge used the information contained within the Admiral Car Finance Document (see attached; page 54, Title; Excess mileage charge) as the basis for his award. He did not refer to my own calculations nor any of the vehicle valuations that I had obtained online. If you ever have the misfortune of having to take your claim to court over the amount charged for fair usage? then I thoroughly recommend that you include this Admiral document in your bundle!
I was awarded the Market value of the motor vehicle based on the information contained within the attached Admiral document. I was also awarded my personal losses (paragraph 8, POC) + costs, traveling expenses and my attendance allowance. Despite my request, I was not awarded interest, due to the fact that up until the hearing I still had use of the car.
It is also worth noting that the Dealer tried to argue that their offer to deduct 25ppm was far less than the 45ppm HMRC mileage rate. The Judge responded by informing the Defendant (Dealer) that the HMRC rate was made up of a collection of elements that were non comparable, thus he rejected their argument.
Please refer to the attached documents for a better understanding of my case and your rights as a consumer.
Attached Files
Comment