Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Morning

I have received this email - yesterday 5.33pm from Solicitor:


Without Prejudice save as to Costs

We thank you for your letter of 2 September 2017.

Unfortunately your offer is of little benefit or of any real incentive to our client given the amount offered which we do not consider reflects a genuine intention to settle the claim. We note the offer represents a reduction for replacement wheels and tyres, which is an offer previously made by you before proceedings were issued. The offer makes no acknowledgment of the fact that the vehicle was damaged whilst under your ownership. It is unreasonable for you to expect our client to simply accept the now damaged vehicle. On that basis, your offer is rejected.

Your claim is based on a request to the Court that you be put in a position as if the purchase (i.e. the contract) never took place however you will appreciate that the vehicle which formed part of the contract no longer exists. It is not simply the case that our client can recover the vehicle from you then place the vehicle on his forecourt for sale. Substantial work is required to the vehicle before any steps can be taken to try and sell the vehicle once more.

Even if the Court accepts your allegations as to the condition of the vehicle at the time of sale (which you will have to prove), the Court is unlikely to make an Order for you to be fully reimbursed given the condition of the vehicle. Making such an Order would mean that the Court was making an Order for our client to be responsible for your acts and/or omissions in failing to keep the vehicle in the condition as original purchased (even taking into account all your alleged faults with the vehicle). Such an approach is unfair and unreasonable.
The Dekra Inspection report shows pictures of the vehicle including intact bumper - this dated 8 December 2016 - I rejected 26 Nov. Surely this is the proof it was intact point of rejection?
I did take reasonable care, it was parked safely top of drive away from the road
If he collected the vehicle when I rejected it would not have got damaged
I am sure I read somewhere that the trader has to prove that the vehicle had no faults on sale and not me proving their were.
When he inspected on 22 June, he noted oil leak, faulty window, engine fan kicking in with ignition on. He did not bring any equipment to verify other faults.

Our client does not refuse mediation or ADR and has demonstrated prior to and since the issuing of your Claim a willingness to resolve the matter. Our client asked for the opportunity to inspect the vehicle prior to transferring funds which is a request you were not prepared to agree to. We consider our client’s request to be entirely reasonable for matters such as this and consider it would be supported by the Court.
He only started mediation through this solicitor - end of May. Previous letters from me requesting mediation were ignored. He did not request to inspect for a refund, that is not true. He kept only insisting on fixing the vehicle, there was never a mention of inspection to transferring funds from him and my letter post damage were that he refund first before releasing the vehicle.
We are only in this mediation now since he had this solicitor on board. Solicitor is talking rubbish !

We confirm that we remain instructed to try and resolve the matter. Unfortunately, until such time as you acknowledge the fact that the vehicle is damaged due to no fault of our client then no meaningful settlement negotiations can take place. In the hope that you now acknowledge and note your position and in a final attempt to try and resolve the matter we confirm our client is prepared to make an increased full and final settlement offer of £10,000. The offer is conditional on the vehicle being returned.
I will not acknowledge the fact the vehicle is damaged due to no fault of her client since he should have dealt with all of this last Nov.

In the event that the matter proceeds and you are successful at the Hearing but the Judge awards you a sum at £10,000 or lower we will be bringing this email to the attention of the Court in respect of a claim for our costs.
Are they allowed to since this is headed up WP?

We would request that you give the offer due consideration in order to avoid any future costs. Please note, our client is giving consideration to submitting an application for an Order that he be allowed to obtain further evidence to include a full report of the damage and likely cost of repair. We anticipate the Court supporting the application especially given the change in circumstances of which the Court are not currently aware and so that the Judge is able to properly adjudicate on the matter at the Small Claims Hearing. The application is likely to result in the Hearing date being moved to a later date and we do not believe it will benefit either party for this litigation to be delayed if the parties can reach a compromise therefore our client will refrain from making such an application for a period of 7 days in order to afford you some time to consider our client’s offer.
Surely this further evidence should have been obtained when he inspected 22 June - why now giving me this jargon about obtaining order from the court all now very last minute (4 weeks tomorrow in court).


We look forward to hearing from you. Should you require a longer period than 7 days then please do not hesitate to say.

Yours faithfully

************************************************** *

So how do I interpret this email and how do I respond please.

Feeling deflated...

Thanks

[des8]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

You could reply along the lines that his offer is well below what you paid for the vehicle and the damages his refusal to acknowledge his statutory duties have cost you.
Accordingly you reject the offer.
Regarding the comment about damage caused during your "ownership" , point out ownership of the vehicle reverted to the trader when the vehicle was rejected. and you were only a baileee'
Remind her that damage occurred after the claim was filed, and that you are reliably informed repairs will cost less than £xyz
Remind her that when the vehicle was rejected the trader ignored all requests to mediation or ADR, and only changed his mind when court papers arrived
Remind her that her client only requested access to the vehicle with a view to repairing it. The trader has no right to insist on repair therefor the request was declined.
Also remind her CRA 2015 only requires that when exercising the short term right to reject the consumer shows the faults were present when the vehicle was purchased. That they were present is supported by the Dekra report. It is for the consumer to prove the fault, not the trader to show otherwise.
Also remind her it is for the trader to arrange for collection at his cost.
Also tell her any application for her client to delay matters further by requesting more time to investigate will be vigorously opposed.

Bullying cow!!

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Thanks Des, will put a letter together and post it on here for comment before sending.

His solicitior's behaviour I feel is unreasonable waiting to respond to me and I would hope that any order by them be rejected to extend because he has had more than enough time since 22 June to gather whatever he wants and I did hold a a piece of paper that inspection night which contained the date and crime number but he chose not to take it.

They are P'ing me off and must admit does make me shakey with all this crap she is throwing at me.

Will post letter once drafted.

Thanks Des.

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

So here is a draft to respond:


************************************************** ************

Without Prejudice Save as to Costs

Dear Madam

I am in receipt of your email dated 10 September 2017.

I would like to point out that your Client’s offer of £10,000 is well below what I paid for the vehicle and the damages. Your Client’s refusal to acknowledge his statutory duties have cost me, therefore I accordingly reject the offer.

Regarding your comment about damage caused during my "ownership", ownership of the vehicle reverted to the trader, your Client, when the vehicle was rejected 26 November 2016 I am therefore only an ‘involuntary bailee'.

I would also like to remind you that the damage occurred after the claim was filed, and that I am reliably informed repairs will cost less than £1,400.

When the vehicle was rejected the trader ignored all requests to mediation or ADR, and only changed his mind when court papers arrived.

Your Client only requested access to the vehicle with a view to repairing it. The trader has no right to insist on repair therefore the request was declined. Your Client was offered through telephone conversations and letter to inspect the vehicle for refund, however he refused and kept insisting on repair only. Since your Client refused to inspect for refund we advised him should he continue to refuse he leaves me no choice but to pay for an Independent Inspection to report on the condition of the van, which took place 8^th December 2016 - for which your Client now has three copies of the report. Your Client still ignored his statutory duties even when being given an Independent report detailing the faults and it’s condition.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 only requires that when exercising the short term right to reject the consumer shows the faults were present when the vehicle was purchased. This is documented and supported by the Dekra report. It is for the consumer to prove the fault, not the trader to show otherwise. Your Client also on inspecting the vehicle on 22 June 2017 admitted there was an oil leak, the window was faulty and heard the fan in operation when ignition was on. He was unable to fully inspect all the faults because he failed to bring any equipment. Upon this admission he cannot continue to deny the faults reported in the Dekra report.

Regarding the return of the vehicle, this is to be arranged at your Client's cost.

Any application for your Client to delay matters further by requesting more time to investigate will be vigorously opposed.

Yours sincerely

************************************************** *********************************************

Please comment and amend accordingly.

Also when do I send this?
Email or letter ?

Many thanks

[des8]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

So here is a draft to respond:


************************************************** ************

Without Prejudice Save as to Costs

Dear Madam

I am in receipt of your email dated 10 September 2017.

I would like to point out that your Client’s offer of £10,000 is well below the total I paid for the vehicle and the damages caused me by your Client’s refusal to acknowledge his statutory duties, therefore I accordingly reject the offer.

Regarding your comment about damage caused during my "ownership", ownership of the vehicle reverted to the trader, your Client, when the vehicle was rejected 26 November 2016 I am therefore only an ‘involuntary bailee'.

I would also like to remind you that the damage occurred after the claim was filed, and that I am reliably informed repairs will cost less than £1,400.

When the vehicle was rejected the trader ignored all requests to mediation or ADR, and only changed his mind when court papers arrived.

Your Client only requested access to the vehicle with a view to repairing it. The trader has no right to insist on repair therefore the request was declined. Your Client was offered through telephone conversations and letter to inspect the vehicle for refund, however he refused and kept insisting on repair only. Since your Client refused to inspect for refund we advised him should he continue to refuse he leaves me no choice but to pay for an Independent Inspection to report on the condition of the van, which took place 8^th December 2016 - for which your Client now has three copies of the report. Your Client still ignored his statutory duties even when being given an Independent report detailing the faults and it’s condition.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 only requires that when exercising the short term right to reject the consumer shows the faults were present when the vehicle was purchased. These are documented and supported by the Dekra report. It is for the consumer to prove the fault, not the trader to show otherwise. Your Client also on inspecting the vehicle on 22 June 2017 admitted there was an oil leak, the window was faulty and heard the fan in operation when ignition was on. He was unable to fully inspect all the faults because he failed to bring any equipment. Upon this admission he cannot continue to deny the faults reported in the Dekra report.

Regarding the return of the vehicle, this is to be arranged at your Client's cost.

Any application for your Client to delay matters further by requesting more time to investigate will be vigorously opposed.

Yours sincerely

************************************************** *********************************************

Please comment and amend accordingly.

Also when do I send this?
Email or letter ?

Many thanks

Slightly changed first line.
A solicitor who works on a Sunday, so send the email next Sunday afternoon
Two can play that game

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Thanks so much Des and yes will put this in an email Sunday afternoon at 5.33pm !


Was also thinking, the photos I have of the van showing intact bumper and that aweful clip with the smoking and that was van at new property parked on drive, do I put these on disc now for supporting case and send along with the papers for in case solicitor tries it on in court with the damage ? I also have a clip with the van damaged. Was just wandering should I or shouldn't I use these or rather rely on my WS and Dekra report ? What are your thoughts here ?

Many thanks Des, appreciate your continued support.

[des8]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

I think you could be going in for overkill with discs etc
You have an enormous amount of evidence of the van's condition without those extras.

I note [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] is reading this.. perhaps an alternative view?

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

I think you could be going in for overkill with discs etc Was just thinking 'cause Solicitor seems to be basing everything on the damage !
You have an enormous amount of evidence of the van's condition without those extras. Dekra report alone should be enough but also the invoice from having to buy wheels/tyres shows notes on oil leak, split cv boot etc

I note @Amethyst is reading this.. perhaps an alternative view?

Thank you. I'm last minute panicking ...

[des8]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Don't let her get to you.
He sold a van.
Van a pig.
You reject
His defence as filed is an admittance the van was a pig
Solicitor is clutching at straws, putting up red herrings and hoping to bully you into accepting a low settlement

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Good morning

So I have been thinking about why this idiot trader is trying to allocate £6,000 for the damage to bumper and side wing, when I know it does not cost this much. IMO I think he wants to also include all the work he needs to do to get it sold again, cheeky rat thinking I will pay for all the repairs of all the faults.

So upon looking at his website and ebay account last night he has an active listing for a facelift for VW vans.

On his listing it states (which includes his name, telephone numbers, website etc so no denying this is his listing) :

VW T5 FACELIFT TO A 2014 SHAPE FRONT T5.1 GP SPORTLINE CONVERSION

T6 (65) PLATE FACELIFT NOW AVAILABLE WITH ALL GENUINE VW PARTS



WHAT YOU GET FOR £1250

NEW BONNET REPAINTED IN THE SAME COLOUR AS YOUR VAN

NEW BUMPER

SPORTLINE REP SPLITTER

A PAIR OF NEW HEADLIGHTS WITH NEW BULBS

NEW GLOSS BLACK GRILL

ALL FITTING AND PAINTING

REWIRE THE HEADLIGHTS

CAN PICK UP DROP OFF AT BUS OR TRAIN STATION



So state of damage to this van. Needs a new bumper and side wing, fitted and sprayed to match, with the rewiring (which is dangling) for the lights
Does not need new bonnet or headlamps.
??

So why drop me £6k from my claim and if he was working on figures just on purchase price that still drops me £4k.

I have printed this listing out, should I include in documents or have it with me in court if an argument presents itself about the damage and the cost. ?

Many thanks

[Amethyst]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

I'd say so, if he can do others for £1250 there's no way on earth he can 'allocate' £6k to yours. you have already noted to the solicitor

I would also like to remind you that the damage occurred after the claim was filed, and that I am reliably informed repairs will cost less than £1,400.

which is spot on. I'm not sure if you could include a copy of that advertisement in further correspondance with the solicitor. I'm not sure 'reliably informed' would be enough of an argument as to cost if it comes up at the hearing - but the advert would assist, I'm not sure if you have actually obtained quote on having the repairs done by a third party, but might be worth doing that and getting the quote in writing ?

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

I'd say so, if he can do others for £1250 there's no way on earth he can 'allocate' £6k to yours. you ahve already noted to the solicitor which is spot on.

Thanks Amethyst.

So would I include at end of my WS and a last exhibit I note his facelift price or just include it as a separate document with a cover note or leave out and just take with me on the day ? Not sure what I am supposed to do ? Thanks

[Amethyst]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Sorry I added a little to my last post - have you had a third party quote for fixing the damage ? ( not the original faults, just the Doris damage ? )

[Amethyst]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

And yes I would add it to your WS and exhibits. If you just bring it up on the day they might be able to argue it's not admissable, or even adjourn things to assess, so be as upfront as possible. When's your WS going in ? ( 2 weeks?)

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Sorry I added a little to my last post - have you had a third party quote for fixing the damage ? ( not the original faults, just the Doris damage ? )

Yes quote included in my WS and Exhibit from a bodyshop repair for just the bumper and wing damage (done in April) - this came to an estimate of £1286 which is why I put less than £1,400.

So leave as is and take his advert to support me during the trial ? Thanks Amethyst. Crossing T's and dotting i's... to ensure I am prepared as I can be to cover all my bases