Cam Chain snapped on new van after 20 months / 114k miles

[des8]

Regarding your question "Does section 5.2 exclude the durability clause of the SOGA that I am relying on? Anyone see anything else I might be missing?"

(i) you should request as per FRANK1 a ruling that your report is suitable, in that it covers the main thrust of your claim that the vehicle lacked durability as required by SOGA 1979 sec 14 (2B) (e)
(ii) nothing else. From earlier posts I assume you did research the risks involved in increasing the size of your claim so it would be placed in Fast Track.

Good luck at the hearing

[WhiteVanMan5]

Thankyou, that's very helpful (Replying to Frank)

[WhiteVanMan5]

Thanks Des.

Yes - I had to pay approx £2,000 to get a solicitor to look at it. Total waste of time and money!! It turned out that if I claimed £32,000 and won then my solicitors fees would be approximately £50,000 and I wouldn't be able to claim most of that back from the other side. Basically I lose if I win (And if I lose outright, then the potential risk is astronomical).

In short, it seems nothing is possible unless I do it myself. Basically a van driver against legal firms. The legal system seems so unreasonably stacked against me.

[WhiteVanMan5]

When you say "request ... a ruling" - is that just putting that case at the hearing on Monday or is it actually submitting something else?

[WhiteVanMan5]

"counsel for the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant and the Part 20 Defendant" - does this mean the same legal firm is representing both parties? Does it imply that the Part 20 defendant has engaged? At the arbitration, the defendant offered basically nothing because they couldn't get the part 20 defendant to respond and engage. I haven't heard anything from the part 20 defendant in relation to being added by the bank.

[Frank1]

My guess is the new solicitor is attempting to get the trial delayed until November to provide time for the part 20 defendant to engage - but I could be wrong.
You should find out more on Monday.

[Frank1]

Remember that satisfactory quality mentioned in 5 2 includes durability.
Durability may not be evident at the point of sale but may become evident later due to poor quality materials or labour deficiency.

[Frank1]

What happened to the van and/or engine? Is it stored somewhere?

[WhiteVanMan5]

What happened to the van and/or engine? Is it stored somewhere?

I kept it until things were settled. It's still in my driveway. But it's been causing problems at home and I'm about to get rid of it (basically sell it for scrap value). It's deteriorated in condition a bit in the 2.5 years. I figure in 2.5 years they've had ample opportunity to inspect it (and that has been offered). Should I hang on to it or am I save to get rid of it?

In other news, postman brought 2 letters today.

First letter from the court is a new hearing - "Take Notice that the hearing of the Part 20 Defendants Application will take place on 30th March at 11:30 AM at the County Court at Lewes, 182 High Street, East Sussex When you should attend. Please note: This case may be released to another judge, possibly at a different court"

A N244 Application Notice form was also attached. It is the Part 20 defendant requesting "relief from sanctions under CPR3.9 and that we be permitted to file and serve our defence"
They asked to proceed without a hearing, but it has been allocated to Lewes Court (they're based in Rotherham). The old solicitors for the defendant are the service address given to the court.
To summarise their position:
- They were joined to proceedings on 3rd November 2025 which they acknowledged on 11th November 2025. They misunderstood they had 28 days from 11th November to respond.
- On 12th November they contacted defendant to request documents relating to original claim which they received on 24th November.
- They tried to instruct solicitors on 27th November, but the solicitors declined 2 weeks latergiven the "low value of the claim"
- Part 20 defendants are therefore representing themselves and have acted as soon as practicably possible, but missed the deadline for filing their defence because:
- As a litigant in person they are not familiar with CPR deadlines
- They misunderstood the effects of filinf their Acknowledgement of Service
- There was a delay in getting the documents from the Part 20 Claimant
- Time was wasted trying to get legal representation
- The delay is short and the defence has now been filed
This form was dated 12th December 2025 (so looks like the court have taken 3 months to deal with it)

The second letter is from the defendants new solicitors. It is "the hearing bundle to be used at the hearing on 16 March". It's a 116 page document, which includes a large amount of information that I have provided them, as well as court papers. My version of this document is approaching 300 pages. I hope I wasn't required to submit this in advance? What I have just found in this document, which I have not seen before, is the defence from the Part 20 Defendant (dated 12th December) - it states it was served on all parties, but I have not seen it before.

[Frank1]

Does your 300 page bundle include your witness statement?
When you argue against track reallocation of your claim point out that the defendant agreed that the small claims track was suitable in their DQ and they did not want to rely on an expert report.
The claim was allocated to the SMC track and transferred to your county court month's ago. You have already participated in SMC mediation.
Refer to cpr 26 13 (1) (i) when considering allocation the court should consider the circumstances of the parties. Your claim was made because being under £10k and therefore allocated to the SMC with less complex rules you could act as a LIP and not be liable for the defendant's legal costs.

[WhiteVanMan5]

Does your 300 page bundle include your witness statement?
When you argue against track reallocation of your claim point out that the defendant agreed that the small claims track was suitable in their DQ and they did not want to rely on an expert report.
The claim was allocated to the SMC track and transferred to your county court month's ago. You have already participated in SMC mediation.
Refer to cpr 26 13 (1) (i) when considering allocation the court should consider the circumstances of the parties. Your claim was made because being under £10k and therefore allocated to the SMC with less complex rules you could act as a LIP and not be liable for the defendant's legal costs.

My 300 page document includes 2 expert reports (reports commissioned at the request of the defendant whilst still at the complaint stage, before court proceedings started). The first report was completed without examining the vehicle. The second report was carried out examining the vehicle including accessing the broken chain by the expert plus a Master Qualified Vauxhall mechanic (title from memory - may not be exactly right).

[WhiteVanMan5]

Am I ok at this stage to get rid of the van, or should I try and hold fire a bit longer? (As I said, it's causing issues at home)

[Frank1]

Wait until after next Monday to see if you are asked about the van. You shouldn't lie and say you got rid of it months ago but you can say it's condition has deteriorated and where it is parked is causing a nuisance

[Frank1]

If your Lewes court time is 2pm next Monday the court schedule is stating your money claim is unallocated.

Did you receive confirmation from the court that your claim has been allocated to the small claims track?

[Frank1]

Interestingly the solicitor writes "allocated " and not "reallocated" in point 1.
Is your claim now over £10k?