A Mini Adventure.......

[biscuits]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

At first glance i would say accept this offer as they do have a point about the mileage, however you have been inconvenienced a great deal by the whole fiasco!
So its just weighing up pro's and cons really, and as long as you are not losing too much money on the deal accept the offer without prejudice

[Guest]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

They are bluffing and you should not fall for it and reject this offer out of hand.

They clearly have a lack of understanding of one of the core terms of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 or at least, they are hoping that you do.

Sometimes affirmation can occur if you become aware of a breach, but fail to complain within a reasonable time but in this case, I fail to see where this has occurred. You have reposed confidence in the supplying dealer's ability to repair the vehicle, but your patience has run out and not without good reason.

Now you sue them.

[iancognito]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

Reply received from the dealer follwoing my request for all details of repairs, do I detect a slight wobble here or am I just an eternal optimist.

Thank you for your letter that I received by fax this morning.
Following your letter of the 21st October, I am sorry to see that you do not find the offer made by MINI Financial Services and ourselves acceptable, and should there be any developments from our perspective I will advise you accordingly.
I have asked Nick Smith who is our Service Operations Manager, to obtain and correlate the information that you have requested, and he will be in touch in due course, at the same time Nick will forward copies of the same documentation to our legal representatives.
From tomorrow lunchtime I will be away from the office until Thursday 1st November, if you require any other information in the meantime please speak to Nick Smith directly.
If I can be of any further assistance in the meantime please let me know.
Yours Sincerely

[iancognito]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

OH just phoned the dealership and they're 'just' doing his letter now (every time :rolleyes

Hadn't done it before because he wasn't sure how much detail we wanted (funny that coz we sent him a bulletted list detailing exactly what we wanted.

Anyway it will be in the post today, 2nd class no doubt.

[cinders]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

have you had this letter back yet babes?

xx

[iancognito]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

Thanks Lou, yes it arrived yeaterday, all 3 pages of it, not quite accurate but we didn't expect anything else really.

I will upload it tonight.

[Guest]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

I thought this might make you smile Jan.

http://dofonline.co.uk/economy/bmw-u...rjury9284.html

[iancognito]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

msl:msl:msl:msl:msl:

I think I'll send him a copy of my N1, will give him something to do while he's inside!!!

Thanks Cet - made my day :kiss:

Reply from the garage attached, now please bear in mind, where they say fault fixed - it never was, on the other hand they are admitting to lots of faults instead of just one (well actually two but they fixed one) that was never repaired - which we think is the case

[iancognito]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

Previous letter from the man himself....

[Paradox]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

The cooper S is a great car and I certainly enjoyed driving mine

Cheeky *******! Ask him if he wants to swap.

[iancognito]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

No flippin chance, never want to drive another Mini as long as I live!!!!

[iancognito]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

As far as we can remember and from what they have told us:

Ordered 26TH November 2006 purchase price £19,938.49 for delivery Christmas 2006
Delivered 31st January 2007, delay due to identified fuel pump problem. (no contact from the garage re delay)
Phoned garage on 6th, went in the garage 7th February for various rattles, suggested as drivers side door post, possibly exhaust and a ‘screech’ when changing from 3rd to 2nd gear. The drivers window was padded, they said the noise wasn’t the door post, car was valeted. No noise from the gear box was identified. Noises still apparent on drive back from garage. (1 day)
23rd February, took technician from the garage out and identified the noise from the gearbox and the door post, took it into the workshop, Was told the door post problem had been sorted, the gear box problem was a known design fault with the sprocket and parts wouldn’t be in until end of March when they would book the car in for repair. Door post noise still apparent on the way home.
24th May, still heard nothing from the garage, all noises still apparent, wrote letter complaining to David Holmes. Reply received apologizing.
13th June car went in for repair, appears the clutch friction plate was re-aligned (no mention of the parts waited for being fitted). Said they had done the door post and identified a problem with the sunroof. Also carried out work to an identified fault with catalytic converter. Rattles still apparent on the way home. (In for 3 days)
29th June went into garage for repairs to sunroof (that hadn’t had a problem before they ‘fixed’ it last time). Again fixed rattles from A post (that they had fixed every time it went in). (1 week)
8th August went back into the garage, heard nothing from them so phoned approximately the 5th September, was told they were waiting for parts, told them to keep the car and was told I would be called back. Had to call back again, next contact from them was 13th September.

[Guest]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

In summary then;

The car was delivered over a month late to start with, due to a manufacturing or component fault and you were not informed of this delay, but suffered it nonetheless.

You reported several faults within one week of owning the car.

Two weeks later you took the car back and some of the faults were identified, one of which was blamed on component design, confirmed by the garage and you were informed that parts to rectify this fault would not be available for over one month.

Despite assurance to the contrary, one of the faults you mentioned was manifestly not fixed, notwithstanding the gearbox fault, that you were informed was not going to be fixed as the components were not going to arrive for over another month.

Two months later you had not heard anything and the faults were still present (as clever as BMW think they are, they do not manufacture "self-repairing" cars) and you wrote to the Dealer Principle and received a limp-wristed but entirely predictable reply.

Three weeks after that the car went back to the garage for several reasons, they kept the car for three days and yet still did not fix all the faults.

Two weeks later the car went into the garage again to repair a fault, caused by the garage to the sunroof and for repairs they had apparently already fixed to the A pillar. On this occasion you were without the car for one week,

Just over five weeks elapse and the car is back at the garage and a month later (and a month without the car), after no news you telephoned them to be told that they were still waiting for parts.

Over another week goes by before you were, once again, forced to telephone them because they had not called you, meaning that you had now been without your car for almost six weeks.

Quite simply the car failed over and over again coupled with poor service from the dealership - so as you have, quite rightly, rejected the car.

As the HP company are not accepting that you are able to reject the car it is now claim time as the vehicle should be of satisfactory quality, which covers "appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, safety and durability" and your Mini manifestly was not any of these things.

As discussed above and as you have already begun you must invoke the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, contending that the HP Company is in breach of contract to you for supplying a car which was not of satisfactory quality, or did not remain so for a reasonable period of time. According to Appeal Court case law (Bernstein v Palmerston Motors 1987) it was held that the supplier must be given three chances to rectify the fault for which the goods are rejected and must have failed to do so, which you have done although in fact, Bernstein v Palmerston Motors (1987) was effectively overturned in 2003 by Clegg v Olle Anderson (2003) where the Court of Appeal stated that the rejection of unsatisfactory goods does not need to be reasonable.

This principle is illustrated perfectly by Bowes v J Richardson & Son Ltd in Rugby County Court in January 2004. In that case Mr Bowes bought a new car from Richardson & Son Ltd. Over time, it became apparent that there were numerous faults with the car and Mr Bowes rejected it on 2 April 2003, exactly 7 months and 2811 miles after delivery. The Defendant said that Mr Bowes could not reject the car, due to the time which had elapsed. Mr Bowes had notified the Defendants of various defects at intervals between one day and a few weeks and certain of these defects were still present on 2 April 2003 despite the Defendant's attempts at diagnosis and repair; accordingly, Mr Bowes had not lost his right to reject the car and won the case.

"There is an implied term, in English Law a condition, that goods sold in the course of a business must be of satisfactory quality...Seller and buyer often agree to try and put defects right but neither is obliged to do so. The fact that the remedy supplied by English law may be thought disproportionate by some is irrelevant to a consideration of whether the implied term has been broken." Lady Justice Hale - Clegg v Olle Anderson (2003)

At this point it is not your responsibility to justify why you want to reject the car and nor need your rejection be reasonable and if the HP company wish to successfully defend your claim, they must prove that the car was of satisfactory quality. They will contend that David Holmes repaired the car under warranty, yet a warranty cannot remove the legal right to reject goods if those goods, as demonstrated here, are of such poor quality and in any case, the repairs either were not carried out satisfactorily or subsequently failed again.

Furthermore, the Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods Act in April 2003 reverses the burden of proof so that if goods go faulty within six months after purchase it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.

I will work on a POC and you can issue your claim next week and if they try to defend this, they will lose.

[iancognito]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

In a nutshell, there was couple of times they said they'd pick it up and didn't or turned up to pick it up when we had cancelled but that's neither here nor there.

Thanks for that x

[Tempty]

Re: A Mini Adventure.......

these people never learn do they
get your poc in hun..... they'll soon figure it out lol
I would say good luck.... but I really don't think your going to need it in this case.... you will win...they will lose...end of