Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

[fandabby]

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

Just been informed we delayed until 2. Prev case took longer.

[Amethyst]

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

Ugghhh just what you want to do, spend the day hanging about court .... Are the recent submissions anything useful/interesting or just faff to try and complicate matters?

[des8]

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

Ugghhh just what you want to do, spend the day hanging about court .... Are the recent submissions anything useful/interesting or just faff to try and complicate matters?

OP told me they were guidance notes business on consumer rights act and a case they referred to in the skeleton.
The case concerned inclusion of engineer's report fee in listed costs.
So basically more scare tactics!

[fandabby]

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

Hi everyone - HERE IS THE UPDATE


Finally back home. WE LOST :

We were in court for just under 3 hours, allocated 90 mins, got from there 5.15pm

Firstly I had an opening and raised concerns over defence and read from the notes re not turning up for allocation and completing DQ with me and said about advancing legal arguments in WS para 42 and the skeleton from the barrister only being submitted yesterday and being handed additional papers today in the waiting room supporting their skeleton, with this submission also a change in pleadings in their original defence which surely should not be allowed aside from the fact the lateness in submission and asked her to consider they are struck out from the hearing. She said no I will allow them !

Judge said as a LIP I had an excellent presentation and was very impressed and that normally barristers do not attend, but let's get on with it.

I answered carefully and caught the barrister off guard and kept going back to the core and argued 9, 10 & 11. I couldn't have done any better, was very precise with my answers.

He lied as did his mate about informing us about tyres on legal limits and corroded door strap and that I said I would buy tyres anyway - I objected and said that is incorrect and said that defendant said it was a great van, cracking van no issues except wiper motor (for which I said they did not disclose he asked because it was noisy in operation) pointed them to his email exhibit 2 etc.

Anyway in short Judge ruled the vehicle is unsatisfactory however my argument that I went on to reject the goods because of all the additional faults following agreeing for him to look at the window and intermittent smoke it not valid as the trader having the opportunity to look and repair the window and smoke can repair all the faults presented and others that he finds at that time is classed as a single repair regardless of how many faults found at the point of him having it back. I then argued on the basis of not as described or fit for purpose so I was not only rejecting under section 9 not satisfactory and she said that doesn't come into it because the fix should have happened first.

Barrister had the Judge jumping all around paperwork talking about the repair stuff between the CRA 2015 and the additional papers served this morning; Consumer Rights Act: Goods, Guidance for Business, September 2015. She actually argued with the Judge which surprised me during her submission of this.
I then argued what Barrister was saying and highlighted all the facts to why it led to rejection and then the Judge did her bit.

Judge said defendant do repairs and let's see if you fix them all satisfactory. If not will see you back in court.
Told me I have to work with the defence with arrangements and I need to get damage repaired first.

Court costs to pay their travel and his mate's loss of earnings.

Judge said we lost on technicality of agreeing the first repair although it was only for smoke and window he would have been expected to repair everything known at the time.

They grinned ear to ear. Barrister was arrogant and looked me up and down and said you can go and I be in touch tomorrow.


She has said that she will put a stay for 6 months (defence wanted 2 months) to protect us in case we need to put claim in again.

If I got that skeleton out we would have won but judge refused for it to be struck out, I don't know why and I did say it was advancing legal arguments and changing their plead for defence as well as it being served very late but she dismissed me.

I was massively polite, bit my lip - didn't interrupt.


So what do you think this cost defence having solicitor writing all those letters, prep work for court and this barrister prep of skeleton and a full day in court ? Hope it cost him thousands!

So I guess I have to see their proposal now.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL YOUR ADVICE, GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT, really appreciate it.

I will keep in touch as it ain't over yet is it !

Hubby just said, no wander she was rude to me at the end because I gave her sh*t in the court room and my answers went around to get in what I needed to say before actually answering and think she wasn't liking that at all.

Glass of wine now and some food, not ate all day !

PS my now liaising with this van repair I guess I wait for their proposal and see if they are genuine. I did ask him in front of the Judge would you repair this van with used or new parts as our discussion on 27 March had me worried when you spoke of collecting parts and taking off a van to get it fixed ! He said in a pause ' new of course '.


Thanks everyone and [MENTION=38669]Des[/MENTION] for keeping me grounded.

I will hang around because it isn't over as he needs to repair the faults to be satisfactory.

PS Judge did not rate Dekra report, found it confusing and incomplete, not describing it thoroughly, however she did rule it was unsatisfactory and if not to technicality (because agreed he can look at 2 faults, infact from law that means all faults so was unable to reject for the additional faults).

[des8]

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

[MENTION=97105]fandabby[/MENTION] You need to clear some of your PMs to receive new!!

[fandabby]

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

[MENTION=39710]des8[/MENTION]
Cleared some space, thanks

[fandabby]

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

Hi

Thinking a little ahead now.

I am getting the bumper and wing sorted, van is booked into body shop next week.

When I get the van back (on a trailer as it is still unroadworthy (from Dekra report) and no MOT or tax now) I will take lots of photos so he can't say it wasn't fixed properly (for in case).

I will contact trader to recover van for his one time attempt at repairs.

Now, when I get the van back from trader the Barrister said to the Judge that I can still short term right to reject 7 days after receiving it back then is goes in to the after 30 days and before 6 months - so will be able to final right to reject it up until 6 months.

Is that correct. ?

Do I still have rights for short term right to reject once I get it back and for how long ? I thought the clock stopped once I rejected and then once repaired and back in my possession I would still have the remainder of the time limit up to the 30th day. Little confused.

I purchased 19th Nov
I rejected 26th Nov

Would like some clarity please on my legal stand point getting it back from his repairs if anyone can shed some light would be appreciated.

Many thanks

[des8]

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

You will have to go along with the court ruling that you will have short term right to reject for seven days after delivery of van, if not brought to a condition which complies with the requirements of CRA 2015. If validly rejected you have full purchased price refunded.
You then have a further 5 months in which to reject during which time it is deemed that the faults were present at time of purchase, but a deduction can be made from refund for usage.
You then have a further 5.5years to reject but you will need to prove that the faults were present at time of purchase, and deductions can be made for usage

Normally if request repair, then the clock stops whilst the vehicle is being repaired.
The judge has in effect ruled that changing your mind about opting for repair then rejecting has shortened the time left for short term rejection to 7 days.
I suppose you could appeal that decision, but I doubt it is worthwhile going down that route.

Wait to see what judge's written directions state

[fandabby]

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

Thank you, hope to get the order in post tomorrow.

[fandabby]

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

UPDATE & ADVICE PLEASE:

I had a telephone call today from Trader.

He said he does not want to repair and wants to pick van up and settle to close this down.

I told him I want him to pick the van up and make the repairs as ordered by the Judge which is all known faults and any he finds whilst he is doing all the repairs.
He said he doesn't have to he has spoken with trading standards and they have advised him that all the minor stuff he doesn't have to do.

I then told him it has nothing to do with trading standards as this is in the courts and the order from the Judge which we all heard very clearly that he has to fix all the faults known mentioned in this case and any others he comes across. He said that is where we will argue I am going to spend a fortune on this van and you probably won't be happy. I told him I will be happy if he fixes all the faults as listed and he said again he doesn't think it fair he fixes everything. I told him pardon me, you sold me that van we were ripped off.

He said he didn't expect to win in court and he thought the barrister was rude towards me and was hoping to talk to me afterwards to settle - he wants to just pay me £13995 which is what I paid. I told him this has cost me money and wouldn't be happy with that and want him to repair it. He then asked if he did the repairs how long would he have to do it.

He told me to discuss with OH and let him know tomorrow.

I ended it that I expect our answer to be he will recover it and fix all the faults known.

I suspect he just wants it back, minimal fixes and sell it on again. He passed comment that the van looks great (photos of repair of bumper) and he knows the transporters hold their money and he knows he could easily sell it again. He said he just doesn't want to deal with me because he feels he'll end up back in court over an oil leak or something, I told him if I got it back and your oil leak repair failed I would ask you to come and do it again.


I wouldn't be happy with just the £13995.

So it would be either a counter offer or ask for price reduction and we do the repairs and sell on.

Update
So I managed to speak with the manager of the bodyshop to ask his advice (he loves VW's and owns one himself) for the state of the van when he had it in for repairing the bumper.

His advice was to get rid if possible. He said the facelift which was done was not very good, poorly finished and with the engine problems, age of vehicle etc he suspects whatever fix he does will only be temporary and thinks months down the road will need a new engine. From the repair list he said it will cost a lot of money to put right – injectors, alternator, battery, let alone to cover all the other faults listed.

So I worked out my courts fees were £1030.68, Dekra £199 and the repairs for bumper £1383 = total £2612.68.

With the van £13995 that's a total of £16607.68.

This doesn't include all the losses which got thrown out by barrister - tax, insurance, wheels - £1039 - plus interest and if I had won would have put in additional costs (printing, postage, LIP time)


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

So what did i do :

I telephoned trader and told him my counter offer to settle with faster payments not cash - would be £16607.

I told him he has cost me money and that he should have dealt with this properly last year. He said he didn;t have the money then. He also said that time he came to my house in April he had £20,000 cash in the van to settle but it didn't work out.

He said he wouldn't be happy paying £16607 as he has already paid £3000 in legal fees and he still needs to repair the van. I told him that I have already had losses that I am not including in the £16607 counter offer and said this offer to settle and end this is good for him.


He said if it went back to court then he would only need to pay £14000 for the van.
I said no if I win I am awarded damages too so all my legal fees, dekra fee and interest would be added on. (this is in small claims)
He said he may take that risk because thinks he would only pay price of van but he doesn't want to go to court again.

So we left it that he would talk to his mate (who he sold the van for) and I should talk to my OH and we will talk again tomorrow.
I told him £14000 for the van is not enough and he needs to consider that with his discussion.

Am I reasonable asking for £16607 or should I be prepared to go lower and wear the loss ?
Bearing in mind I have already lost most of my damages already.

If anyone has views on this I would appreciate it please.

Thank you

[R0b]

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

You need to ask yourself what you really want out of this. Do you want to have a van that's repaired or do you want to scrape as much money back as possible even if there is some loss? Based on this thread I would be opting for the latter.

If the claim is in the small claims track then you wouldn't be awarded your legal fees unless there is unreasonable conduct involved and there's generally a high hurdle to overcome on that. I don't think you are being unreasonable in asking for what you want but is £16,607 your absolute bottom line and you aren't willing to go any lower? Have you considered going back to him and saying look, you want £16,607 and he's said he would pay £14,000 why not meet in the middle at £15,000? It's clear he doesn't want to go back to court and potentially spend more money on a lawyer in addition to the £14,000 that he might have to repay plus interest (if a court decides to award this). Therefore it might be in everyone's interest to settle before that hearing comes about.

Sometimes you might not always be able to recover all of your losses and on occasions you might have to write off some of it for the sake of getting most of it back. But if you are insistent on sticking to your guns then that's the risk you also take and the judge might not give you want you want either - always bear in mind that going to court is never certain.

[fandabby]

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

Thanks Rob, yes going for the latter too. He wouldn't repair it right and there is SOOOO much wrong with it.

I will await his call and see what he comes back with and go from there.

[fandabby]

I thought I updated this but for everyone who wants to know outcome.

Trader refused to make all repairs, we had lengthy conversations/arguments and he just refused and would only address the main issue of the smoking as he said all other faults are minor and his solicitor informed him he would get away with it and should it go back to court I wouldn't be able to reject on minor faults.

We came to an agreement because this had to end, no trust in him anyway and did I want to chance another day in court and I also had letters from solicitor telling me I should take the offer otherwise it would be brought to the attention of the court that I refused to settle and would seek all their legal costs. Bully tactics again.

Settlement was £14,500.
£13,995 was van purchase cost and £505 was additional for the extra spot lights I put on the van when bumper/wing was repaired - betterment to van.

I also had to put a battery on the van as he was arguing it was my fault it had been left stood for a year. I pointed out that was part of the fault van not starting so likely a battery fault back then but he harassed me to change it or he would reduce the 14500 to cover battery.

Eventually van was picked up oh and drove off not transported just before Christmas....

Glad to see an end to this lengthy experience. He or his solicitor were horrible to deal with my advice is make sure you understand the CRA and your rights to reject.
If you want your money back within those 30 days, Never agree or hint at them repairing because if you do you have to let them have one chance at the repair.
If they do not agree to refund just get the vehicle back parked at their premise and then keep pushing for your refund.

These guys on here are fabulous and I wouldn't have got through the year without their guidance and support.