Tri Party contracts/advice needed.

[steveeasy]

Section 75 of CCA 1974 clearly states "[the debtor] shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor."

This means you may claim against both of them (jointly liable) or either of them (severally liable)
They are both equally and wholly liable for the complete deal, ie including the warranty debacle

I thought you had already sent LBAs to trader and finance house, so why send another?

Hi Des8,
Thanks for clarifying that point. Much appreciated indeed. I was going to send all the evidence with images and supporting information and give them one final opportunity. The warranty this would be a breach of contract as well I trust. Ill do it this week and send recorded delivery. If no response ill submit a claim against them both then.
Thank you for your time in providing advice. very much appreciated.
Steveeasy

[des8]

I still think the lack of warranty is a minor side act.
If it was part of the transaction then its absence is misrepresentation, and it doesn't affect your claim for breach of contract

[steveeasy]

I still think the lack of warranty is a minor side act.
If it was part of the transaction then its absence is misrepresentation, and it doesn't affect your claim for breach of contract

Hi Des8,
Yes I agree. it is another matter and if my claim is successful it really will be irrelevant.

Thank you
Steveeasy

[steveeasy]

Hi Des8,
I have sent one final letter to both parties by recorded delivery. I am waiting 7 days and feel comfortable now what I am doing. clear and concise.

In the meantime although it is irrelevant. I have been told numerous times I continued to drive with the oil light on for 500 miles. I recieved this letter yesterday. It now says the car was this time sold with warranty. It says the dealer would have helped but due to driving 500 miles as set out in the report he would not.

Here is the response highlighted in black.


We refer to your correspondence dated 13 February 2023. The sales invoice confirms the vehicle was sold with a 3-month in-house mechanical breakdown warranty. Like the majority of third-party warranties, a warranty would not cover any mechanical breakdowns caused wholly or partly due to driver negligence, abuse or accidental damage. The warranty would also exclude any claim for consequential or susequential loss or damage arising from the failure of the component. Our client would have been willing to assist with repairing the vehicle under warranty however, they are not obliged to assist with issues which have been caused or partly caused by driver negligence. The expert report confirms that at the time of failure, the mileage was reported as approximately 101,000 miles. However, you have evidently continued to drive the vehicle with a warning light illuminated, as confirmed by the inspection mileage increasing by 521 miles. The report further confirms that the faults were not present at the time of sale and therefore they are not the selling agent’s responsibility. For the aforementioned reasons, our client denies any liability to assist with repairing the vehicle under the warranty or under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

If they read the report and their own letter. the milage at time of reporting the breakdown was Approximate. It seams a good excuse to duck liability, but they failed to understand the difference between recorded milage and approximate. I may well have been asked the milage when I called up and given I had my hip removed that day I probably said an approximate milage and that was how it was recorded. at inspection it recorded the difference. more plausable than driving from lincoln to Glasgow and back with the red light on having reported the engine had failed.

Just astounds me how slow people can be.

Steveeasy

[des8]

That's lawgistics for you ... talk a lot of bovine excrement hoping to put claimants off.

[steveeasy]

That's lawgistics for you ... talk a lot of bovine excrement hoping to put claimants off.

Well there is a funny side to this caper.

The Dealer has told me today his legal team are now dealing with the matter as I requested. Did I,!!!!. But Lawlogistics have said the following

Finally, Lawgistics Ltd are not instructed to accept service of proceedings.

They have removed from their website all the advice to dealers of the perils of not providing proper warranty and failing to disclose details of warranty. apparently gives the buyer an open ticket to money. I did happen to mention id screen shot their website and suggested they might like to offer some advice to their client.

Id have thought they might have suggested a resolution as it is always a better option. They are betting ill not proceed with the matter. They are very mistaken indeed. Im just making sure I am covering everything as much as I can.

Thank You.
Steveeasy

[des8]

Lawgistics can't accept service of suit basically because they are not solicitors.
Conduct of litigation is one of the reserved legal activities

[steveeasy]

Hi Des8,
Oh did not realise they were not solicitors. Does that mean therefore they cant represent thier client in court.?. I got the impression they were legal representatives. Seams a little odd.

Steveeasy

[des8]

https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk...istics-limited

However they do employ at least a couple of qualified solicitors and paralegals, but Lawgistics do not represent clients in court.
Read their "Casework Service" and you will note that it stops short of representing clients in court

[steveeasy]

https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk...istics-limited

However they do employ at least a couple of qualified solicitors and paralegals, but Lawgistics do not represent clients in court.
Read their "Casework Service" and you will note that it stops short of representing clients in court

Thanks. Going of Track a bit, I suspect they can represent a client outside of court then. Just waiting for the finance company to not respond again. sent letters to them by recorded delivery.
Steveeasy

[des8]

Basically yes, but they need to be careful not to stray!

For reserved legal activities see here: https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/en...gal-activities

[steveeasy]

Hi Des8
Just to confirm no response at all from finance company following final request to them done by recorded delivery. I am putting everything together now. The ace report that guided the finance company stated in thier opinion the faults.(Faulty coolant hose Made from brake pipe. exhaust repair. were not present at time of purchase. BUT in a further letter confirms the coolant hose failure could well have caused the damage to engine.

I dont understand how he could say hed seen the video of faulty pipe. but conclude it was not faulty at time of purchase.

the report states the following.
It is the duty of an expert to help the Court on the matters within his expertise. This duty over-rides any obligation to the person from whom he has received instructions or by whom he is paid. “I understand my duty to the Court and have complied and will continue to comply with it and I am aware of the requirements of Part 35 and Practice Direction 35, this protocol and the practice direction on pre-action conduct

Can this duty be used to obtain or request further responses from the engineer prior to a court hearing. Id like to request further details from the engineer but they will not respond as I am not the client. What pre action disclosure, is this something I can use?

Thank you
Steveeasy

[des8]

For starters he is not an expert witness Suggest you have a look at CPR 35 and the accompanying Practice Direction)

He has produced a report for the finance company and might be one of their witnesses,

you need to prepare your claim particulars, and later your witness statement

[steveeasy]

,
Hi Des8,
Yes Ill get the particulars of claim filled out and get it sent off.
Many Thanks for your help.

Steveasy

[des8]

If the invoice does not mention his limited status it means you purchased from him as an individual
A limited company must include the full company name as it appears on the certificate of incorporation.
Other than the website did you receive any documentation that showed you were dealing with a limited company prior to completing the purchase?
Assuming you answer "no" your claim form should refer to him as "Mr Dodgy Trader trading as XYZ Company"

Regarding the claim, are you not using MCOL?

When you have filed your N1, the court will serve it on the claimants, who then have a time limit in which to filetheir defence (if any)
The court will issue directions regarding filing and serving of witness statements etc

The links in post 23 are worth reading if this is your first time.
Not all applies but they are worth looking at