Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

[GFP]

I am looking for any help/guidance in the following areas.
1) What to expect in court

I purchased a older Ford Focus Diesel (25/09/2011) with 140,000 miles on it from a car dealer (with forecourt etc.)
The salesman at the time pointed out it had a new turbo (or we would not have purchased with this milage).
We got a receipt to the seller for the car and another receipt from one of the sellers other companies (a garage) for fitting a new turbo including a 6000 mile or 6 month warranty.

On the 15/11/2011 the car failed, we had to be towed home. The recovery garage (on insurance) told us the turbo had failed.

We returned the car to the dealer the next day and they said if it was the turbo they would replace it under warranty, if not then we would have to pay.

We continued having phone calls with the dealer who after a week admitted it was the turbo and elected (by phone to repair).
Throughout this time we were given countless excuses such as the dealer selling the turbo had gone out of business. At this time it then transpired that the turbo listed as new on the invoice was not actually new but refurbished. This along with the continued delays gave us cause to contact trading standards.
On the 9th Jan 2012 the company called to inform us the car had been repaired.

At this point we had owned the car for 106 days, 51 of which the car had been back at the dealers.

The car worked for a week, after which the Turbo failed again (after <300 miles).
We returned the car again and were told to leave it with them.
As we had previously called trading standards we called them again and they rightly told us to put everything in writing.

We wrote a letter 21/1/12 delivered and signed for by registered mail asking they make a decision on if they would repair/replace or refund and to do so within 1 week and if they elected to repair to do this within a further 2 weeks.
They did not answer this letter so we asked again in a letter 6/2/2012, this letter was refused and undelivered.
We wrote a further letter on the 21/2/2012. I included the refused letter and made copies, one delivered by hand, the other sent registered mail.
On the advice of Trading standards the final letter was entitled Final Notice before Legal Action giving them until 29/2/12 to rectify the matter.

Again we received no communication.
In between this the tax disk had expired on the courtesy car we contacted them on 28/02/2012 and 1/03/2012 to request a replacement tax disk.
During these calls my partner asked if they wished to give us an update to do so in writing.

On the 27th March we had received no communication and followed up with the Issue under small claims court.
Later the same day the company called to inform us the car had been repaired and to return the courtesy car.

We delivered a letter by hand saying we rejected the car. However the dealer threatened to leave the car parked on the yellow lines outside if we did not remove it.
As the car was registered in my partners name I reluctantly got intimidated into removing the car. since this time it has sat on my friends drive (we don't have off-road parking) and has been SWORN.

Throughout the whole case the dealer has replied late or defaulted and then appealed to extend. (I have a lot of paperwork for this).
Finally they submitted a DEFENCE in which they claim to have been in contact throughout.

Even excluding the 3 phone calls regarding the tax disk for the courtesy car they had the car for over 6 weeks without any contact and 8 weeks up to the point they contacted us.

Throughout they have avoided putting ANYTHING in writing and they are now making claims (totally false) we have difficulty disproving. How can we prove they DID NOT call us?
We have our phone records and have submitted as evidence but unless the court asks them to prove they even made calls how can we prove this?

[bluebottle]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

In what way are the dealer's claims difficult to disprove? Please post them up.

[GFP]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

In what way are the dealer's claims difficult to disprove? Please post them up.

These are numbered from THE DEFENCE (ones I missed I don't argue but I'll retype if needed)
It is the Defendants case that:-

1. The Defendant admits the sale of a ford focus Registration XX05 XXX to the claimant on 25 September 2011

2. Prior to the Purchase the Defendant fitted a new turbo unit to the Vehicle on 30th August 2011. This part came with a 6 months parts and labour manufacturers warranty.
No issues with 1 or 2 except they later admitted the original replacement was not new.

3. The Claimant first reported an issue with the turbo on 20th November 2011, some 2 months after purchase. (It was 55 days, not 2 months) It transpired the Turbo was defective, and another new turbo was fitted by the Defendant at their cost as the supplier had gone out of business. The turbo was neither new, nor at this point to I believe they went out of business (or it seems unlikely that not only did this one go out of business but the next one did as well) ... This cost was never passed onto the Claimant.

4. The Defendant had to take time to source the turbo from a new supplier, and thus there was a minor delay during this process. This was further attributable to the Christmas period. The claimant was informed as such by telephone by the Defendants sales manager. (This was the case in this instance but they make it sound like this was the issue in the second case). The Vehicle was collected on 10 January 2012.

5. The new turbo then failed on the 16 January 2012. The Defendant had the vehicle back in their possession and found the new Turbo to also be defective. The manufacturer who supplied the turbo did not uphold the warranty that they supplied with the part, and thus the Defendant, at their own expense, had to purchase another newly sourced Turbo unit. This cost was never passed onto the Claimant, and the vehicle was repaired and returned to them. Further they were saved time, stress and inconvenience of dealing with the Manufacturers in this matter.

6. The Defendant dealt with this issue as best they could, taking into consideration the uncontrollable and unforeseeable delays caused by third parties. The Claimant was provided a courtesy car for the duration of the repairs and further the vehicle is now in full working order. We had to insure the courtousy car, I was made to sign a waver that I was required to do this. They promised me a copy by post (along with the invoice for work carried out, neither have ever arrived but this was just oral)

7. The Claimant was kept up to date with the full progress of the work and timescales involved by telephone whilst their vehicle was with the defendant.
This is just an out and out lie. They did not call once (except to say the car was now repaired. We sent 3 registered letters all ignored. We did call to say the tax disk had expired but the repairs were not discussed, indeed my partner (who's first language is not English) took the call and said to please put it in writing at which they got rude and abusive with her. (She speaks good English, but not car or legal English).
Here they are just lying but we can't prove they didn't call. I did submit our phone bill as evidence and asked the Defendant to do the same if they wished to submit this as their Defence. Our phone provider will not give details of calls received without a court order.

8. The Defendant has made no contact, not raised any issue with the Defendant since the vehicle was returned to them, the Defendant therefore feels this claim is unmerited and vexatious.
Again, another out and out lie. We sent a registered letter the next day. I can prove we posted it and show a copy but I can't PROVE that this was the letter in the registered letter. (It could have been blank....it wasn't but how can I prove the content of a registered letter)

9. Save as admitted, the Defendant refutes the Claimants claim in its entirety.

Below is the reply I made

The Claimant refutes the following claims made by the Defendant in their Defense:


1.) In paragraph 6 the Defendant claims that ‘the vehicle is now in full working order’. The Claimant views this claim as unfounded. The Defendant had replaced the Turbo prior to the Claimant purchasing the vehicle, the Turbo failed again less than 2 months and 1000 miles after the purchase. Following this 2nd failure, the Defendant claimed to have replaced the Turbo a second time. This then failed again after only 200 miles/ 1week.
The Claimant has been told by the Defendant 3 times that they have repaired the car and it is in good working order. The Claimant believes that either the car has an underlying fault causing the Turbo to fail or the Defendant is not capable of replacing the Turbo correctly.


2.) In paragraph 8, the Defendant claims that “The Claimant has made no contact, not raised any issue with the Defendant since the Vehicle was returned to them...”. This is not the case, the Claimant hand delivered a letter the day the car was collected (12 March 2012, Enclosed) and sent a letter by registered mail the following day (13th March 2012, Enclosed). The partner of Claimant only collected the car as the staff of the Defendant threatened to leave the car on the yellow lines outside the premises overnight and because the car’s registered keeper is the Claimant.
In this letter the Claimant informed that if the Defendant wished to discuss this matter that they could do so in writing at any point.


3.) The Defendant claims in Paragraph 7. that “The claimant was kept up to date with the full progress of the work and time scales involved by telephone whilst their vehicle was with the defendant”.
This was not the case, the Claimant has asked for a record of calls to and from Claimants telephone during the period however the service provider (T-Mobile) informed the Claimant that they will provide details of outgoing calls but will not provide details of incoming calls without a court order. The Claimant provides a copy of the T-Mobile bill detailing calls out during this period (Enclosed).


The Claimant informs the court that the Defendant did not call the Claimant at all between the car being taken to the Defendant’s premises of work and the day the Defendant called to inform the Claimant that the Defendant had repaired the vehicle on the 12th March 2012. The Claimant would ask the court that the Defendant provides proof of these claimed telephone conversations or that the court issues a court order to obtain the full records of the Claimant and Defendants phone calls as the Claimant cannot prove the Defendant did not call them.


Between these dates the Claimant called the Defendant as can be seen on the T-Mobile record of calls (Enclosed). The Claimant called the Defendant on 28 February 2012 at 11:50 as the road tax on the courtesy car had expired. The Defendant informed the Claimant that someone would call back in a few minutes. This did not occur and the Claimant called the Defendant a second time at 13:30 the same day. The Defendant informed the Claimant that the tax would be purchased the same day and put in the post.


The Defendant did try to give a progress report (of sorts) at the time however by this time the Defendant had failed to reply to THREE registered letters and had also failed to supply the promised guarantee from the previous work. The Claimant informed the Defendant that any news should be put in a letter as requested in the letters. It should be noted that the Claimant does not speak English as a first language nor is competent to talk about repairs to vehicles and preferred to have information in writing and had previously asked for communication in writing by registered letter.


By the 1st March no tax disk had been received and the Claimant again called the Defendant regarding this.

1. The Claimant sent registered letters to the Defendant on 22nd January 2012, 7th February 2012 (previously submitted tot he court) asking the Defendant to inform the Claimant if they were going to repair, replace or refund and if they elected to repair to do so within a week of each letter being received. The Defendant did not reply to any of the letters. The defendant specifically requested an update in writing. On the 21st February 2012 the Claimant had still no reply and sent a final letter as “Final Letter Before Legal Action”. The Defendant did not reply to nor acknowledge this letter. The Defendant called the Claimant in the afternoon of 12th March 2012, by this time the Claimant had no reply to any of the 3 letters and had as instructed in the final letter before action filed the matter with the court.
2. Other than the discussion when he courtesy car was returned on 12 March 2012 and the Claimant's partner was pressured into collecting the vehicle (XX05 XXX) the only correspondence from the Defendant has been from their solicitor dated 20 March 2012 (Enclosed) in which the Defendant’s solicitor informs the Claimant that “The vehicle has been repaired; you cannot look to reject it under the relevant legislation...”. This letter is in direct contradiction to the December 2009 OFT Guidance for second hand car dealers, Compliance with Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and Sale of goods Act 1979 (As Amended) which states in Para 8.16 “Within a reasonable period after the sale, buyers do not lose their right to reject the car and require their money back merely because they ask for or agree to let you repair the car. Where a consumer agrees to allow you to repair the faulty car (within a reasonable period after the sale) he is still entitled to a refund if the repair turns out to be unsatisfactory or was not done promptly enough.” The OFT document also states “Where a fault or defect emerges with a car in the first six months after purchase, it will be presumed that the fault was present at the time of sale”.

1. The Defendant claims to have kept the Claimant informed of the news however the Defendant did not purchase the replacement Turbo until after the Final Letter before action. The Claimant would point out the invoice (Global Autoparts Invoice Number X8241, Enclosed) dated the 28/2/2012, 1 week after the Final Letter before action. The Defendant still did not contact the Claimant, however at his point the Defendant had still not procured the replacement part hence no news would have been available.

6 ) The Claimant states in paragraphs 2, 3, 5 that the replacement turbo fitted was new.
In a letter handed to the defendant on 12-March-2012 entitled “Confirmation of a Turbo Replacement on Ford Focus XX05 XXX” (Enclosed) the Claimant states the Turbo was refurbished. The Claimant maintains that under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended, “new” should mean “new” and not “refurbished”. The Claimant wishes to raise this due to the history of the car and ability to sell the car. The car was initially purchased with a 6 month or 6,000 mile guarantee on the turbo however the refurbished turbo states a 3 month or 3,000 mile guarantee.

[bluebottle]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

Is this turbo unit a salvage part, i.e. sourced from a vehicle dismantler? This might explain the failures and short warranty period. How much time was left on the MOT certificate when you purchased the vehicle or did it come with a brand-new MOT?

Sorry to ask these questions, but I'm trying to rule out the most obvious first.

[GFP]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

Is this turbo unit a salvage part, i.e. sourced from a vehicle dismantler? This might explain the failures and short warranty period. How much time was left on the MOT certificate when you purchased the vehicle or did it come with a brand-new MOT?

Sorry to ask these questions, but I'm trying to rule out the most obvious first.

The Turbo was on an invoice as New ... it later transpired it was a refurbished unit..... however this failed after 8 weeks and was replaced (taking 8 weeks) and then failed again after 1 week then we waited another 8 weeks (with no information despite sending three registered letters asking how they were proceeding and to answer in writing....

I could post the letters but this might just be information overload.

The first replacement before we bought had a 6 month warranty.... (or 6000 miles).... this was then replaced with one we asked for the warranty (by email and in person).
This was promised, then didn't arrive then another email etc. in the week the car was working... then the turbo failed again ... we never got a warranty on the 2nd one....

Then we waited 8 weeks, had no reply to the letters .... and the replacement was a refurb with 3 months. (They made an accidental? mistake on this by backdating it a month which I had corrected and initialled before I collected).

I think they know the car is a lemon and were simply trying to get us out of any written warranty and intimidate us over our rights buying from a dealer.
Either that or 3 turbo's all failed (refurbs or not) or they can't replace a Turbo..... the former seems far more likely given their absolute refusal to answer any letters or put anything in writing.

When we returned the courtesy car (which barely functioned as was not road legal having neither tax nor a functioning speedometer) they forced me to take the car back by threatening to leave it parked on double yellows.... retrospectively I should have held my ground and wrote to DVLC but its not that easy with several burly and aggressive people in a used car lot.

[bluebottle]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

You would have been better off calling the police if you were subjected to intimidation. Could you advise as to the vehicle's MOT status at the date of purchase, please?

[GFP]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

It had an MOT until 12 June 2012 (9 months)

[GFP]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

Incidentally, the MOT was at 146,504 miles. (Rotherham) They replaced the Turbo (before we bought it) at 146,645 (Hillingdon 160 miles away) and we bought it at 146,663.
There is no reason the Turbo not functioning would cause it to fail the MOT though. It might not be fit to drive but it would probably pass emissions tests.

[GFP]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

The main question I have is how can they make false claims that could be proven to be false?
Their Defence seems to rest on the fact they contacted us by telephone hence making the 56 days they had the car (the second time) and did not contact us or reply to letters seem 'reasonable' as they kept us informed. The court could get their phone records? We are 100% confident they did not call at all... its just an out and out lie ... yet they seem confident to put it in their DEFENCE....

From the date we bought the car to the date they 'repaired it the second time' was 165 days of which we had the car for 58.
They have 'repaired the turbo twice and it has failed twice', either this is an underlying or latent fault or they can't replace a turbo... to get an expert witness (AA/RAC) will cost a lot more than the car is worth hence it seems pointless as they have already failed to repair the car twice.

Events by Date
1) 21 June 2011, Car had MOT at 146,504 miles in Rotherham
2) 30 Aug 2011, Car in Hillingdon at 146645 miles, work carried for for "Power Loss", INVOICE with 6 month, 600 mile guarantee for "NEW TURBO"
3) 27 Sept 2011, 146,663 miles, Purchased car with "NEW TURBO"
4) 19 Nov 2011, Had car for 55 days, Turbo Fails again
5) 51 days, car is with dealer - Numerous telephone conversations - told Turbo not new ... told we would accept a refurbished unit or nothing etc. stream of excuses/delays ... got given courtesy car without fully comp (and made to sign waver to get fully comp) ... after several weeks
6) 09 Jan 2012, Car is 'repaired' and collected next day - ask for renewed guarantee for Turbo - told by Sales Manager he is too busy and will post.
7) 16 Jan 2012 - Turbo Fails again after 7 days returned to dealer - seen by a sales person - again ask for paperwork for last repair - they say they will look into it
8) 21 Jan 2012 - No contact from dealer - on advice of trading standards send a letter asking them if they are going to repair, replace or refund and if repair for a estimate of time, ask for reply within 1 week.
9) 06 Feb 2012 - No reply from letter but Royal Mail recorded delivery shows it is signed for, send 2nd letter asking specifically for a written response and further week to reply
10) 21 Feb 2012 - No reply from either letter, Royal Mail recorded delivery shows letter was rejected (refused to sign for) - write 3rd letter Final Before Action... enclosing other 2 letters - ask for them to refund purchase price before 29 Feb 2012 they have now had car for 36 days with no communication and not answered any letters
11) 28 Feb 2012 - We notice the tax disk on courtesy car has expired - We contact them as we do not want to be responsible for an untaxed car - they have now had the car for 43 days without making any contact or answering letters - Ask for Sales Manager, not present promises he will call back - doesn't so make second call -
12) 01 Mar 2012 - Still no response so call again regarding tax disk - No further info - ask if he received letters -
13) Tax disk arrives - compliment slip enclosed but still no letter regarding repair/refund
14) 12 Mar 2012 - they have had car for 56 days and have still not replied, as stated we go to County Court and start action in morning
15) 12 Mar 2012 - Company phone partner saying car is ready for collection - we explain we have now started proceedings they demand courtesy car returned
16) 12 Mar 2012 - Return courtesy car, they threaten to leave car registered in my partners name on yellow lines outside if I do not collect it
17) 12 Mar 2012 - Letter delivered by hand with return of keys stating we have rejected the car as we had received no reply to letters and had filed a claim, make it clear we can discuss in writing only at any point
18) 13 Mar 2012 - Letter by registered mail ... as previous letter but noting that car was 'collected' under duress - again make it clear we can discuss this matter but by written correspondence only
19) 20 March 2012 - Letter from Defendants solicitors - claims to have 'contacted us at every stage of the vehicles repair - completely false also states "The vehicle has been repaired and you cannot look to reject it under the relevant legislation" - This is in direct contravention to the OFT Guidance for Second hand car dealers - Compliance with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) that explicitly states (9.20
Within the reasonable period after the sale, consumers do not lose their right to reject the vehicle and require their money back simply because they ask for or agree to let you try to repair the vehicle. Where a consumer agrees to allow you to repair the faulty vehicle (within the reasonable period after the sale) he is still entitled to a refund if the repair turns out to be unsatisfactory or was not done promptly enough.
)
23 May 2012 Application from Defendant to have judgement set aside ----- this is then a pattern of letting every deadline expire and then at the last minute making an appeal

[bluebottle]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

From what you have said, it is clear you have the law on your side. I note the Defendant has applied to have the judgement set aside, but then fails to comply with statutory deadlines and making last-minute appeals. What is the current situation with this, please? The other thing that comes to mind is as to whether you have spoken to VOSA about this. VOSA have the power to enter motor dealers' and garage premises to check whether vehicles are in a roadworthy condition and/or whether work being carried out on vehicles is being done in accordance with the Motor Vehicle (Construction & Use) Regulations.

[Nikolai]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

I think you are entitled to reject the vehicle and have your money refunded, but this depends on what you have asked the court to do in your Claim Form. You mention the Defendant has applied for Judgement to be set aside - when did you get Judgement and for how much? Has the court heard the Defendant's application yet?
Many defendants make statements and claims in their court documents that are untrue and cannot be substantiated. Ultimately it's a matter for the court to decide at trial which party's evidence it prefers. If there are downright whoppers in the Defence that's dangerous ground for the Defendant, because he or his solicitors will have signed a statement of truth and false statements could amount to perjury.

[GFP]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

I think you are entitled to reject the vehicle and have your money refunded, but this depends on what you have asked the court to do in your Claim Form. You mention the Defendant has applied for Judgement to be set aside - when did you get Judgement and for how much? Has the court heard the Defendant's application yet?
Many defendants make statements and claims in their court documents that are untrue and cannot be substantiated. Ultimately it's a matter for the court to decide at trial which party's evidence it prefers. If there are downright whoppers in the Defence that's dangerous ground for the Defendant, because he or his solicitors will have signed a statement of truth and false statements could amount to perjury.

On my phone now will post fuller reply later
judgement was for £3200
when yOu say heard do you meant literally or read in writing ?
They submitted a written defence (see above) but nothing in actual court

[bluebottle]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

With the judgement being what it is, you could have it enforced by High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEOs). They can force entry to business premises without a court order. It would shake the motor dealer somewhat. I would also inform VOSA. A visit from them is as welcome as a hole in the head to a motor dealer.

[GFP]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

With the judgement being what it is, you could have it enforced by High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEOs). They can force entry to business premises without a court order. It would shake the motor dealer somewhat. I would also inform VOSA. A visit from them is as welcome as a hole in the head to a motor dealer.

With the judgement being what it is, you could have it enforced by High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEOs). They can force entry to business premises without a court order. It would shake the motor dealer somewhat. I would also inform VOSA. A visit from them is as welcome as a hole in the head to a motor dealer.

They have now appealed against this judgement so we now have to go to court. I can't see what they gained by putting no defence and then appealing but ??? it costs us £325 Court fee and they get to not pay for longer.

They did say they would just drag things out as long as possible so I guess this is what they are doing.

Many defendants make statements and claims in their court documents that are untrue and cannot be substantiated. Ultimately it's a matter for the court to decide at trial which party's evidence it prefers. If there are downright whoppers in the Defence that's dangerous ground for the Defendant, because he or his solicitors will have signed a statement of truth and false statements could amount to perjury.

That's what I was thinking, surely the judge won't take kindly to that?
This is my claim (Vehicle Reg edited)

1. The defendant is a commercial trader offering vehicles for sale on a trade basis.
2. On the 25/9/11 the claimant visited the defendants commercial showroom to view a Ford Focus TDCI.
3. The salesman pointed out to the claimant that the car had a new Turbo fitted, the invoice for this Turbo was shown as a new Turbo being fitted 30/08/2011 less than a month and 20 miles before the claimant purchased the car.
4. On 25/09/11 the claimant purchased a Ford Focus TDCI Registration Number XX05XX from the defendant and paid £2995.00, [Invoice Enclosed] an additional invoice was presented for the fitting of the new turbo. [Enclosed]
The Invoice from <Company> states: Check car for power loss, Found turbo to be unserviceable, supply and fit new turbo, change oil and oil filter and oil. The invoice for the new turbo also states that it is guaranteed for parts and labour for 6 months or 6000 miles.
5. The claimant would not have purchased a car of this age and milage without a new turbo.
6. The car was sold with the following express warranties in addition to the work carried out on the Turbo.
That the vehicle would be checked over by the defendant for safety and mechanical defects. And the following implied warranties:
a. it would be fit for purpose; b. it would be of merchantable quality c. it would be safe to drive d. it had no mechanical or other defects which would affect the ability to use the car comfortably and safely.
6. On 19/11/2011 the car failed with a complete loss of power and had to be towed home. The car was towed under the claimants breakdown insurance.
7. On 20/11/2011 the claimant returned the car to the defendant.
8. Between 20/11/2011 several telephone conversations took place between the defendant and the claimants partner (Me). In these conversations the claimants partner was told that a new turbo did not mean ‘new’ but refurbished and the defendant sited problems with the supplier of the company that had supplied the Turbo. The claimant understood that the defendant would only repair the car if the issue was the turbo. The claimant understood that the defendant had elected to repair the car at this point.
9. The defendant loaned the claimant a courtesy car during this time but the claimant was forced to sign a waver stating that the claimant would be responsible for arranging 3rd party insurance.
10.On the 9/1/2012 the defendant telephoned the claimant saying the car was repaired and could be collected which the claimant did on 10/1/2011. At the time of collection and pursuant to an email from the defendants partner in an email of 25/11/2011 the defendant asked for a copy of the invoice and a guarantee on work carried out on the turbo and was informed that they would forwards this by post. (This has not been received to date).
11. On the 16/1/2012 the car failed again with complete power loss and was returned to the defendant who again supplied a courtesy car in informed the claimants partner (Me) that they would contact her. (The claimant was in the claimants partners car outside the defendants premises with the toddler).
12. On 19/11/2011 the claimant returned the car to the defendant who issued a courtesy car (again with the cost of the insurance at the claimants expense) and the defendant said they would contact the claimant when they knew what was happening.
13. On the 21/1/2012 under advice from trading standards, the claimant wrote to the defendant and sent by registered mail asking that the defendant decide on the course of action (repair, refund, replace under the Sale of Goods Act 1979) and inform us of the decision before the 28/01/2012. The claimant also asked in the letter that the invoice and guarantee for the previous work be forwarded as asked for by the claimant and promised by the defendant.
14. On 6/2/2012 no communication had been received by the claimant from the defendant either regarding the defendants decision to repair, replace or refund nor the guarantee and invoice for previous work carried out.
15. On 6/2/2012 the claimant wrote a second letter posted recorded delivery on the 7/2/2012. The claimant again asked the defendant to make a decision and inform the claimant in writing with a letter
postmarked before the 10/2/2012 and if the decision was to repair to undertake this before the 17/2/2012.
16. On the 21/2/2012 the claimant had still no reply or communication from the defendant, on the advice of Trading standards the claimant wrote again to the defendant. The claimant stated that this was a final notice before action. The claimant stated that the defendant had already had the car for over 4 weeks and had not contacted the defendant. The letter stated therefore that they had all reasonable opportunity and that as they had not taken this opportunity the claimant now wished to have the matter resolved and the purchase price refunded. The claimant included copies of the previous letters. [ENCLOSED].
17. In breach of implied warranties the car has not been fit for purpose Since purchasing the car in September 2011 the car has spent longer being repaired than with the claimant. Despite the turbo failing once and having been replaced the turbo failed again after only 1 week.
18. In breach of contract the car, was not fit for purpose, the defendant has received three letters asking the defendant to indicate their course of action but has not replied. Neither has the defendant provided the invoice asked for for work carried out on the turbo.
19. The defendant has already attempted to repair the car twice, once before the claimant purchased and once since. The claimant regards the fault as a latent fault as the first repair was reported as powerloss with a replacement of the turbo. The subsequent failure was again powerloss and replacement of turbo. The repair has now failed and the powerloss is identical to the previous time.
The facts in this statement of case are true

[Nikolai]

Re: Sale of Goods Act and Used Vehicle

Thanks for posting your claim. I'm trying to understand the sequence of events. Was the Judgement you got a Default Judgement or a Judgement following a court hearing? I guess it's a Default J, if they are applying to set it aside. If this is right, the court will fix a hearing for their application, and the parties will attend. The judge will either set aside your judgement and give directions for the future conduct of the claim, or will refuse the application in which case your judgement will stand. Have you received a date to attend court for such a hearing?