Taking dealer to court for selling dangerous car

[JUICYBUBS1]

https://www.facebook.com/pg/WaltonCa...=page_internal

[JUICYBUBS1]

their lawyers are legalsolutions4u

[JUICYBUBS1]

ours is the latest review, and if you scroll down and read, there are a few other bad ones too, there are also bad reviews on google.......we worded the N1 with facts and dates, and different acts, we have sent all our evidence in too, we have 2 independent garages who are willing to back us up too, and have given reports. i am also in contact with another lady who they have done this too, and the poor lady had to scrap her car as she received threats from them

[des8]

Have come across that outfit previously, and wouldn't worry too much about them.
They do tend to be aggressive and hope to bully peeps into submission.
They are not solicitors .

Pity you didn't post up your claim before submitting it.
The claim particulars only need to be brief basically stating there was a contract, and that the defendant was in breach of terms implied under CRA 2015.

Evidence etc comes later, but you are where you are.

[JUICYBUBS1]

They have mentioned* PDI Report and that husband signed it and we have a certificate?* *We no idea what it is, and we have no certificates at all

[des8]

PDI* is a pre delivery inspection that dealers routinely (?) do on vehicles before they sell them.
Whether or not you received it, whether or not they carried it out doesn't affect the fact that your vehicle was unsatisfactory.

[JUICYBUBS1]

is there a way of producing the email to you to have a look at?* back in 20 going to get kids their tea, been so engrossed in paperwork

[des8]

*send it to*admin@legalbeagles.info*mentioning which thread it belongs to.

[JUICYBUBS1]

just this moment sent it. thank you

[Amethyst]

Got it xxx I'll sort it out and post up.*

[Amethyst]

Email from LS4U - 15/1/2020


We have recently been instructed by the above-named Client in respect of your purchase of the aforementioned Vehicle. We are in receipt of youremails of the Friday 20^thDecember 2019 and 9^thJanuary 2020 to our Client and note the contents of the same.



We understand that you purchased the Vehicle from our Client in or around the *4th December 2019 for a total cost of £xxxx, you additionally purchased RAC warranty for a total cost of £xxx. Prior to selling the Vehicle to you, our Client had completed a pre-delivery inspection on the Vehicle, and it was sold with a valid MOT certificate.



In your email dated 20^thDecember 2019 you stated previously that you had requested from our client that they resolve these issues.We would respectfully refer you to s23(6) CRA 2015 which states a consumer who requires or agrees to the repair of goods cannot require the trader to replace or exercise their short-term right to reject. We would aver that as you have consented to repairs completed on the Vehicle by our Client, you are now unable to exercise your short term right to reject.



We understand from your email you allege the vehicle suffered from several issues in regard to the interior, exterior and the engine of the vehicle. You believe that you are entitled to reject the vehicle under the CRA. We can advise that you have no grounds upon which to reject the vehicle at this stage.



Our Client is fully aware of their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “CRA”). The Vehicle must be of satisfactory quality s9 CRA, fit for purpose s10 CRA and as described at point of sale – s11 CRA 2015. It is accepted that if a fault occurs within the first 6 months of purchase then that fault is deemed to have been present at point of sale. The burden is upon our Client to show that the fault was not present at the point of sale. Our Client believes that the pre-delivery inspection document and the MOT may go towards discharging this burden – s19(14) CRA 2019.



Further, we respectfully refer you to s22 CRA which deals with a consumer’s short-term right to reject. In order for a consumer to seek to enforce their short-term right to reject, the Vehicle must have a fault that renders the Vehicle of unsatisfactory quality at point of sale. Please note that it is not any fault that then allows the right to reject. We would respectfully refer you to the provisions of s19(14) CRA 2015 and can advise that they do not apply to the short-term right to reject and the burden is upon you as the consumer to show nonconformity with the CRA 2015.



We understand that prior to purchasing the Vehicle from our Client you conducted a 2-hour thorough inspection of the interior and exterior of the vehicle. Following this you went ahead with the purchase. We note that you have expressly signed the pre-delivery inspection report and agreed that there were no defects present with the Vehicle with both the mechanical condition and the exterior bodywork at the point of sale and you were happy with the condition of the Vehicle.



Upon reviewing the health check, which you received from a main dealership this states there is only one urgent attention issue and that is with the differential/gear box. Our client has no liability for the advisory issues stated as this does not cause a vehicle to be of unsatisfactory quality. Regarding the one urgent attention issue stated, we understand that a main car dealership health check can be done to a substantially higher standard than an independent car dealership which leads us to state that our client is not liable for the previously referred problem stated as an ‘urgent attention issue’.



In relation to noise emitting from the differential and or gearbox, we would respectfully refer you to s9(2) CRA 2015 which states the quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory. We would aver that given you purchased a 6 year old Vehicle it is reasonable to expect certain noises emitting from the Vehicle however remain of satisfactory quality.*



Further and in the alternative we would refer you to s9(4) CRA 2015 which states that when considering whether a fault would render the Vehicle of unsatisfactory quality a consumer cannot seek to rely on an issue where the consumer has already examined the goods before the contract was made and which such examination ought to haverevealed such an issue. We would aver that in relation to the diff/gear box such defects were not present as you have signed the PDI report showing that there were no issues with the vehicle at point of sale. If the defect was present and it is as per your allegation

this would have been reasonably clear to you during the inspection; thus, you cannot now seek monies owed for the issue that has occurred.



Our client is a professional car dealership who takes customer satisfaction very seriously and we would therefore propose the following resolution to the matter. Our client proposes that they will come and collect the vehicle from you and carry out an inspection. We will then revert to you with our client’s findings.



We have also been informed that defamatory reviews have been posted online. We respectfully ask that you remove these reviews pending the matter being resolved.



In the event that the above resolution is unacceptable then we can advise that our Client is a member of an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme and would be willing to use ADR as a means to reach a resolution. They have subscribed to Automotive Mediation Ltd who are an independent firm who specialise in motor retail disputes. The website iswww.automotivemediation.co.ukand their contact number is *0161 359 8028. We trust that this will not be needed, and we hope that the matter can be settled without further redress.



Please ensure that all future correspondence is sent directly to this firm.



We look forward to hearing from you as to when the Vehicle is returned for inspection

Yours sincerely

[JUICYBUBS1]

thats it. thank you.husband never signed a PDI, and i have just asked someone who went with my husband and he said no,he definitely didnt sign one. Also my husband wasnt even at the delaers for 2hrs and to do a thorough inspection for 2hrs he would need the car on ramps, and he isnt a mechanic. We have made 20 calls to the garage since 3rd december, it was beginning december when we stated we wanted to reject the car. We just said what we needed to say, and the person on the phone would say i will pass it on to x or y and get them to call you back, they have never ever called us back.

Would a PDI check be the same as the 82 point check?If so, then most certainly wasnt done

[Amethyst]

Could you also send over your particulars of claim you submitted to the court please.

Did you put an email address for the defendants for service when submitting your claim ? Just wondering if it is just coincidence Ls4u sent that email to you or if the trader informed them of the claim notification. ( if you didn't put his email in then they won't receive the claim for 3/4 days - I'd recommend not getting into discussions with Ls4u and I can see you told them you will only communicate by letter from now on so that's good )

[JUICYBUBS1]

hi i have just replied via email, cannot find copy of N1 on the computer.* The dealer contacted LS4U* and gave them our email address.* Husband wants to not respond and just go for court. We do not wish for the car to be repaired, as we do not trust, and have absolutey no faith in the dealer, this was emailed and mentioned to them in December, on instruction from Trading Standards and CAB

[JUICYBUBS1]

Husband has PTSD and suffers short term memory loss, so i am trying to read between the lines with everything. he wont allow me to fight this solely as he wants to see it through personally