Re: Court Claim or The Motor Ombudsman
hi pt2537
Once I process this claim, if defendant still rejects and goes to court what extra costs could I be looking at? You mention something about if the Claim fails at trial.. is that when I send in backup for the claim and it still fails? Not sure how all this works.
We did a Dekra report, had an engineer inspect vehicle and his conclusion was
Conclusion / Opinion:
In the engineers opinion being based on evidence written, reported and observed at time of assessment of the numerous defect noted,
the following can be concluded:
The poor starting/starter motor condition is progressive mechanical wear and tear, together with the excessive plumes of exhaust
smoke which, in the opinion of the engineer, is indicative of excessive internal turbo wear and internal engine wear. The heavy oil
soiling to the oil filler neck suggests that previous frequent oil top ups have been necessary indicating excessive oil usage.
In the opinion of the engineer, all above defects were present at point of sale, together with the missing right front brake caliper clip,
split left front outer driveshaft gaiter and the cracked right front alloy road wheel, due to the dirt ingress to the cracked area.
The vehicle in its present state is not fit for purpose and is in a dangerous condition.
Would this report not be sufficient to show that I was correct rejecting the vehicle for refund?
A daunting process and I was hoping not to get to this.
thanks
hi pt2537
Once I process this claim, if defendant still rejects and goes to court what extra costs could I be looking at? You mention something about if the Claim fails at trial.. is that when I send in backup for the claim and it still fails? Not sure how all this works.
We did a Dekra report, had an engineer inspect vehicle and his conclusion was
Conclusion / Opinion:
In the engineers opinion being based on evidence written, reported and observed at time of assessment of the numerous defect noted,
the following can be concluded:
The poor starting/starter motor condition is progressive mechanical wear and tear, together with the excessive plumes of exhaust
smoke which, in the opinion of the engineer, is indicative of excessive internal turbo wear and internal engine wear. The heavy oil
soiling to the oil filler neck suggests that previous frequent oil top ups have been necessary indicating excessive oil usage.
In the opinion of the engineer, all above defects were present at point of sale, together with the missing right front brake caliper clip,
split left front outer driveshaft gaiter and the cracked right front alloy road wheel, due to the dirt ingress to the cracked area.
The vehicle in its present state is not fit for purpose and is in a dangerous condition.
Would this report not be sufficient to show that I was correct rejecting the vehicle for refund?
A daunting process and I was hoping not to get to this.
thanks
Originally posted by pt2537
View Post
Comment