Tweet
Hi Guys
I have been asked by my boss to pick up this personal issue. I am his PA so before anyone questions why this whirlwind has ended up on my lap. It is because I deal with the majority of his working life aspects, and he also from time to time deflects issues to me.
His daughter had her heart set on a little 1.0 C1, she found it online and he bought it. Bank transfer. (yes issue number one, if I had know, I would have forced him to buy via credit card)
Car passed MOT on the day or so before sale. no issues 16th December 2020
On the day of delivery, it was driven up to the grandmas house, and then it was left for 4 or 5 weeks til her birthday
Went to start the car, wouldn't start. - RAC checked it, and it got towed in to the garage. Who kept it for over a month repaired it and sent it back.
Then in February the car faulted again. And they kept it again for a month as my boss turned up at the garage unannounced to find the car sat in a corner awaiting repair- and the car came back in a horrific state. dash hanging off, again, wouldn't start, airbag warning light on the dash.
I am copy and pasting into here the letters I have sent. The car has done less than 10 miles since it was delivered.
He has also paid for a private independent engineer for a report. which again is below- under the letters.
I have sent recorded delivery, first one was signed for by the man who my boss bought the car from, but the LBA I sent, he signed for it as "smith" Royal mail have confirmed the address where both letters have been signed for. Does that cause me any issues?
My issue is, The company that my boss bought the car from is what I'd say is almost a "bolt on" to a MOT station. I have rang the MOT station who are adamant they are nothing to do with the sales forecourt. But today after some snooping on companies house, I scrolled to the bottom of the website of the sales garage, who actually list the LTD reg number as the MOT station. I will add the company is very professional looking with their website and auto trader photos. As we were in lockdown, there wasn't a way for my boss to go and visually look at a car and test drive etc.
I have contacted the MOT station again to advise there has been a recorded letter sent to them and they have again advised they are nothing to do with the sales forecourt. Yet the man we have spoken to on the phone is called "Mohammed" and the director of the MOT station is also called "Mohammed" .. the sales company is the Acronym of the MOT station. It all seems to suspect for me. I spoke to Mohammed prior to sending letter 1, and explained I would like to resolve this without going through formal proceedings and he responded with "do what you f**ing want luv, I ain't giving you a refund"
There has been no response to any letter formally or emails. Below is letter 1. dated march, letter 2 dated may, and the engineers report
My question is. Do I now go to MCOL? have we got any kind of leg to stand on with getting a refund. I would really like to get this sorted for both my boss and his poor daughter.
Should I contact the dealer with the whole pack of information and the report or do I just go straight to MCOL.
If there is anyone out there to help, we are happy to pay for your time to help with me writing the next stages, or if someone can take it on- its the principal now. Not even the money.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I recently bought a car from your company xx on (date, it was delivered on 16th December 2020. The car is a Citroen C1 registration number xx . A major fault with the vehicle has been apparent since 4th February 2021. I am dissatisfied with the product I have bought from you and as such I would like to reject this car.
The faults with the car include missing compression bolts, engine management light on, wiring loom bracket bolts missing, faulty battery, dashboard left loose, with clips broken, a scratch on the internal door skin, and the returned vehicle was filthy, also showing lots of dirty fingerprints; therefore not returned in either the condition handed back to you, or a COVID sanitised vehicle.
I have allowed your garage to attempt to fix the problem with my car. To date, the car has been with your mechanics for 28 days I made it clear from the outset via the phone that by me allowing you to repair would not affect my right of rejection and accordingly as you have been given ample opportunity to correct the faults with the vehicle, but with no satisfactory conclusion, I am therefore rejecting this car. I have been advised the car is unsafe and should not be driven due to the numerous missing bolts/screws left in the footwell and the dash hanging loose.
I refer you to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which details that the car I bought from you must be of satisfactory quality. From my own judgement and that of the independent expert (RAC) I believe that the car you have sold me is not of a satisfactory quality, as such I believe you are contravening Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The car has driven 4 miles since purchased from yourselves, it would highlight that the faults that have occurred with the vehicle have been historical and the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality prior to me purchasing it. We have been advised the faults now occurring on the latest RAC Breakdown report would have been pre existing prior to the odometer reading of 56110 as the immobiliser fault would block out any ability to allow the engine to identify fault codes.
I request that you pay me the full amount for my car which totals £2,400 I expect to hear from you to confirm you have received this letter so we can arrange a refund. I have stopped driving the car in line with my rejection and I request that you collect it at the earliest opportunity.
I have attached photographic evidence within this correspondence and the RAC reports identifying the faults. I am able to provide video evidence of the loose dashboard which can be emailed if required.
If you fail to accept my right to reject this car I will be forced to progress with legal proceedings in the County Court in order to recover the money. Please respond within 7 days of this letter, which has also been emailed on the 24th March 2021 to XX email address
Yours Sincerely
Next Letter
Dear Sirs
Reference: Car reg
As it has not been possible to resolve this matter amicably, and it is apparent that court action may be necessary, I write in compliance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.
There will be a Comprehensive RAC report completed on the vehicle prior to court proceedings. But please be aware this is a letter before action and Trading Standards are now involved.
Rejection of faulty vehicle: missing compression bolts, engine management light on, wiring loom bracket bolts missing, faulty battery, dashboard left loose, with clips broken, a scratch on the internal door skin, returned vehicle was filthy, also showing lots of dirty fingerprints; therefore not a COVID sanitised vehicle.
From you I am claiming: £2589
I have calculated this sum as this is the purchase price of the vehicle plus the cost of a comprehensive report with the RAC.
Listed below are the documents on which I intend to rely in my claim against you:
RAC Reports
Photographic evidence of the condition of the returned vehicle
In accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct I would request that you provide me with copies of the following documents:
Proof the vehicle was safe to drive by supplying a RAC mechanical report or garage sign off from the garage which you have advised signed the vehicle off to be returned back to us.
I can confirm that I would be agreeable to mediation and would consider any other system of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in order to avoid the need for this matter to be resolved by the courts.
I would invite you to put forward any proposals in this regard.
In closing, I would draw your attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Practice Direction which gives the courts the power to impose sanctions on the parties if they fail to comply with the direction including failing to respond to this letter before claim.
I look forward to hearing from you within the next 14 days.
Should I not receive a response to my letter within this time frame then I anticipate that court action will be commenced with no further reference to you.
Yours faithfully,
This is the report from the independent assesor
Further to your instruction I attended XX 17/05/21. The purpose of the inspection was to review the vehicle for overall condition and report on any safety related or dangerous items that affect its roadworthy condition following purchase. The inspection was carried out without any facilities on the drive and based on a visual examination and no dismantling took place. The vehicle battery was in a discharged state and required the vehicle to be jump started.
BACKGROUND Vehicle was purchased on 15th December, later delivered on 16th December 2020. I understand that the vehicle was purchased from XXX on or around 16/12/20 from an advertisement on Autotrader. The vehicle passed its MOT on 14/12/20 with 56101 recorded miles. I understand that the vehicle was delivered on 16/12/20 and not driven any significant distance as it was intended as a birthday present. 04/02/21 RAC attended due to none starting and the following conclusion was drawn, “Vehicle is immobilised, lost comms with module, unable to reset, fuses O.K., spoken to local rac approved garages (3) who advised not likely to be able to repair so recommend dealer attention”. Vehicle subsequently requested on 4/02/21 to be returned to vendor for repairs. Vendor collected on 10/02/21. Vendor made no further contact until Customer visited the Vendors premises on 1/3/21. A refund had been requested by customer but was assured the vehicle would be returned ok and Vendor refused refund. Vehicle was returned on 12/03/21 and upon its return it was found to be in a very dirty condition with wiring remnant’s, engine management light on, exhaust compression bolts in the drivers footwell, and the dashboard in a dislodged position. Following further inspection by the RAC it was concluded the battery was unserviceable with the following conclusion being drawn, “A battery is made up of cells, if one of the cells is damaged or broken a bad cell result will be displayed on the tester. The battery will need to be replaced.”
RAC DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM System Type: ENGINE SYSTEM TEST/VALUES Name: CFA (1KR) - ME795 - 1.0L - 50 (68) CFB (1KR) - ME795 - 1.0L - 50 (68) DTC: P0139, Downstream lambda sensor heater; short circuit to battery/ground or open circuit DTC: P0130, Upstream lambda sensor heater; short circuit to ground. As no resolve was forthcoming by the vendor, I was contacted and instructed to examine the vehicle. CONDITION I would describe the general outside visible condition of the vehicle as average. There are several minor blemishes to the bodywork commensurate with age and mileage. Tyres noted as with good condition and tread.
LIGHTING, CONTROLS These appeared functional as intended.
BODYWORK The bodywork appears to be free of significate defects of evidence of previous repair, trim to rear of n/s/f wing is absent. The interior was noted as heavily soiled (apparently resultant of works on behalf of the vendor. Interior condition The dashboard was noted to be insecure and had been poorly refitted.Bolts clips, screws and wiring remnants to drivers footwell.
ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION The vehicle started with the aid of jump leads and was found to run slightly erratically and was not as responsive as would be anticipated (investigation required), no undue noises or visible leaks or issues within the confines of the inspection, although the clutch pedal was noted to be sitting high and seemingly incorrectly adjusted. Having run the vehicle to normal operating temperature at increased “revs” I would have anticipated that the battery would have taken some charge and be able to restart when turned off, this was not the case, thus reiterating the RAC findings that the battery is defunct. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that if the vehicle were attempted to be driven and it was “stalled” in traffic it would not be able to be restarted without assistance. However, it was apparent that the rocker cover had been removed and refitted recently with “tooling marks evident to bolts) gasket sealer was also noted to be present around the throttle body.Various wiring clips are insecure with evidence to suggest that the wiring loom and some connections have been disturbed, it can only be assumed that this has been during the course of maintenance/investigations. A screwdriver is also noted as being present to the engine undertray No road test was undertaken. Wiring connection seal and screwdriver
BRAKING SYSTEM Satisfactory on static testing
COMMENTS/DISCUSSION Having viewed the MOT history online, I note the vehicle passed its MOT on14/12/20 showing 56101 miles, at inspection the vehicle was displaying 56110 meaning the vehicle has covered 9 miles since passing the MOT. As the vehicle has only covered a couple of miles in the purchaser’s possession and been transported to and from vendor, it can only be assumed the remainder of the 9 miles was covered prior to the transaction. Whilst I have viewed the vehicle some time since the initial delivery/purchase I would suggest that some defects were present at the point of sale. I make this conclusion due to the time lapse and limited mileage cover since purchase. Therefore, following the attempted remedial works, I am sceptical on the condition at delivery but on the balance of probabilities I do not believe this vehicle was in a roadworthy condition or fit for purpose at the point of sale. Based on the condition at my inspection following I can say without doubt that the vehicle is not fit for purpose or roadworthy currently.
CONCLUSION The presence of the discarded bolts etc within the footwell visible on entry give no confidence to the use of the vehicle. Noting the RAC reports there are numerous other unidentified issues with the vehicle, requiring further investigation. In my opinion the previously mentioned issues are generally due to a lack of reasonable skill and care, leaving the vehicle not fit for purpose and in an unroadworthy condition. As the passenger airbag is located in the insecure dash and is safety related, should deployment occur this could have a detrimental effect on the safety of the vehicle and its occupants. Therefore, I consider that the vehicle was in an unroadworthy condition in that its use on a road could involve a danger of injury to a person. To reiterate I believe that the defects noted are of a long-standing nature and were present at the point of sale and in the balance of probabilities were also present and visible. I reserve the right to amend or alter the content of this report should further evidence be presented or come to light that may affect the or change the opinions and conclusions within. The images enclosed have not been altered or digitally enhanced other than resizing for insertion within and I enclose the original jpeg images as an attachment for ease of viewing, should they be required. I understand that my duty in providing reports and giving evidence is to help the court and that this duty overrides any obligation to the instructing parties. I confirm that I have complied with my duties. I confirm that insofar as the facts stated in my report are within my own knowledge, I have made it clear which they are and I believe them to be true, and that the opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinion. I confirm that I have not entered into any arrangement where the amount of payment of my fees is in any way dependent upon the outcome of the case. I understand that in carrying out the function as expert witness, my duty is to the court and I will act in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules.
I have been asked by my boss to pick up this personal issue. I am his PA so before anyone questions why this whirlwind has ended up on my lap. It is because I deal with the majority of his working life aspects, and he also from time to time deflects issues to me.
His daughter had her heart set on a little 1.0 C1, she found it online and he bought it. Bank transfer. (yes issue number one, if I had know, I would have forced him to buy via credit card)
Car passed MOT on the day or so before sale. no issues 16th December 2020
On the day of delivery, it was driven up to the grandmas house, and then it was left for 4 or 5 weeks til her birthday
Went to start the car, wouldn't start. - RAC checked it, and it got towed in to the garage. Who kept it for over a month repaired it and sent it back.
Then in February the car faulted again. And they kept it again for a month as my boss turned up at the garage unannounced to find the car sat in a corner awaiting repair- and the car came back in a horrific state. dash hanging off, again, wouldn't start, airbag warning light on the dash.
I am copy and pasting into here the letters I have sent. The car has done less than 10 miles since it was delivered.
He has also paid for a private independent engineer for a report. which again is below- under the letters.
I have sent recorded delivery, first one was signed for by the man who my boss bought the car from, but the LBA I sent, he signed for it as "smith" Royal mail have confirmed the address where both letters have been signed for. Does that cause me any issues?
My issue is, The company that my boss bought the car from is what I'd say is almost a "bolt on" to a MOT station. I have rang the MOT station who are adamant they are nothing to do with the sales forecourt. But today after some snooping on companies house, I scrolled to the bottom of the website of the sales garage, who actually list the LTD reg number as the MOT station. I will add the company is very professional looking with their website and auto trader photos. As we were in lockdown, there wasn't a way for my boss to go and visually look at a car and test drive etc.
I have contacted the MOT station again to advise there has been a recorded letter sent to them and they have again advised they are nothing to do with the sales forecourt. Yet the man we have spoken to on the phone is called "Mohammed" and the director of the MOT station is also called "Mohammed" .. the sales company is the Acronym of the MOT station. It all seems to suspect for me. I spoke to Mohammed prior to sending letter 1, and explained I would like to resolve this without going through formal proceedings and he responded with "do what you f**ing want luv, I ain't giving you a refund"
There has been no response to any letter formally or emails. Below is letter 1. dated march, letter 2 dated may, and the engineers report
My question is. Do I now go to MCOL? have we got any kind of leg to stand on with getting a refund. I would really like to get this sorted for both my boss and his poor daughter.
Should I contact the dealer with the whole pack of information and the report or do I just go straight to MCOL.
If there is anyone out there to help, we are happy to pay for your time to help with me writing the next stages, or if someone can take it on- its the principal now. Not even the money.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I recently bought a car from your company xx on (date, it was delivered on 16th December 2020. The car is a Citroen C1 registration number xx . A major fault with the vehicle has been apparent since 4th February 2021. I am dissatisfied with the product I have bought from you and as such I would like to reject this car.
The faults with the car include missing compression bolts, engine management light on, wiring loom bracket bolts missing, faulty battery, dashboard left loose, with clips broken, a scratch on the internal door skin, and the returned vehicle was filthy, also showing lots of dirty fingerprints; therefore not returned in either the condition handed back to you, or a COVID sanitised vehicle.
I have allowed your garage to attempt to fix the problem with my car. To date, the car has been with your mechanics for 28 days I made it clear from the outset via the phone that by me allowing you to repair would not affect my right of rejection and accordingly as you have been given ample opportunity to correct the faults with the vehicle, but with no satisfactory conclusion, I am therefore rejecting this car. I have been advised the car is unsafe and should not be driven due to the numerous missing bolts/screws left in the footwell and the dash hanging loose.
I refer you to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which details that the car I bought from you must be of satisfactory quality. From my own judgement and that of the independent expert (RAC) I believe that the car you have sold me is not of a satisfactory quality, as such I believe you are contravening Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The car has driven 4 miles since purchased from yourselves, it would highlight that the faults that have occurred with the vehicle have been historical and the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality prior to me purchasing it. We have been advised the faults now occurring on the latest RAC Breakdown report would have been pre existing prior to the odometer reading of 56110 as the immobiliser fault would block out any ability to allow the engine to identify fault codes.
I request that you pay me the full amount for my car which totals £2,400 I expect to hear from you to confirm you have received this letter so we can arrange a refund. I have stopped driving the car in line with my rejection and I request that you collect it at the earliest opportunity.
I have attached photographic evidence within this correspondence and the RAC reports identifying the faults. I am able to provide video evidence of the loose dashboard which can be emailed if required.
If you fail to accept my right to reject this car I will be forced to progress with legal proceedings in the County Court in order to recover the money. Please respond within 7 days of this letter, which has also been emailed on the 24th March 2021 to XX email address
Yours Sincerely
Next Letter
Dear Sirs
Reference: Car reg
As it has not been possible to resolve this matter amicably, and it is apparent that court action may be necessary, I write in compliance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.
There will be a Comprehensive RAC report completed on the vehicle prior to court proceedings. But please be aware this is a letter before action and Trading Standards are now involved.
Rejection of faulty vehicle: missing compression bolts, engine management light on, wiring loom bracket bolts missing, faulty battery, dashboard left loose, with clips broken, a scratch on the internal door skin, returned vehicle was filthy, also showing lots of dirty fingerprints; therefore not a COVID sanitised vehicle.
From you I am claiming: £2589
I have calculated this sum as this is the purchase price of the vehicle plus the cost of a comprehensive report with the RAC.
Listed below are the documents on which I intend to rely in my claim against you:
RAC Reports
Photographic evidence of the condition of the returned vehicle
In accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct I would request that you provide me with copies of the following documents:
Proof the vehicle was safe to drive by supplying a RAC mechanical report or garage sign off from the garage which you have advised signed the vehicle off to be returned back to us.
I can confirm that I would be agreeable to mediation and would consider any other system of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in order to avoid the need for this matter to be resolved by the courts.
I would invite you to put forward any proposals in this regard.
In closing, I would draw your attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Practice Direction which gives the courts the power to impose sanctions on the parties if they fail to comply with the direction including failing to respond to this letter before claim.
I look forward to hearing from you within the next 14 days.
Should I not receive a response to my letter within this time frame then I anticipate that court action will be commenced with no further reference to you.
Yours faithfully,
This is the report from the independent assesor
Further to your instruction I attended XX 17/05/21. The purpose of the inspection was to review the vehicle for overall condition and report on any safety related or dangerous items that affect its roadworthy condition following purchase. The inspection was carried out without any facilities on the drive and based on a visual examination and no dismantling took place. The vehicle battery was in a discharged state and required the vehicle to be jump started.
BACKGROUND Vehicle was purchased on 15th December, later delivered on 16th December 2020. I understand that the vehicle was purchased from XXX on or around 16/12/20 from an advertisement on Autotrader. The vehicle passed its MOT on 14/12/20 with 56101 recorded miles. I understand that the vehicle was delivered on 16/12/20 and not driven any significant distance as it was intended as a birthday present. 04/02/21 RAC attended due to none starting and the following conclusion was drawn, “Vehicle is immobilised, lost comms with module, unable to reset, fuses O.K., spoken to local rac approved garages (3) who advised not likely to be able to repair so recommend dealer attention”. Vehicle subsequently requested on 4/02/21 to be returned to vendor for repairs. Vendor collected on 10/02/21. Vendor made no further contact until Customer visited the Vendors premises on 1/3/21. A refund had been requested by customer but was assured the vehicle would be returned ok and Vendor refused refund. Vehicle was returned on 12/03/21 and upon its return it was found to be in a very dirty condition with wiring remnant’s, engine management light on, exhaust compression bolts in the drivers footwell, and the dashboard in a dislodged position. Following further inspection by the RAC it was concluded the battery was unserviceable with the following conclusion being drawn, “A battery is made up of cells, if one of the cells is damaged or broken a bad cell result will be displayed on the tester. The battery will need to be replaced.”
RAC DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM System Type: ENGINE SYSTEM TEST/VALUES Name: CFA (1KR) - ME795 - 1.0L - 50 (68) CFB (1KR) - ME795 - 1.0L - 50 (68) DTC: P0139, Downstream lambda sensor heater; short circuit to battery/ground or open circuit DTC: P0130, Upstream lambda sensor heater; short circuit to ground. As no resolve was forthcoming by the vendor, I was contacted and instructed to examine the vehicle. CONDITION I would describe the general outside visible condition of the vehicle as average. There are several minor blemishes to the bodywork commensurate with age and mileage. Tyres noted as with good condition and tread.
LIGHTING, CONTROLS These appeared functional as intended.
BODYWORK The bodywork appears to be free of significate defects of evidence of previous repair, trim to rear of n/s/f wing is absent. The interior was noted as heavily soiled (apparently resultant of works on behalf of the vendor. Interior condition The dashboard was noted to be insecure and had been poorly refitted.Bolts clips, screws and wiring remnants to drivers footwell.
ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION The vehicle started with the aid of jump leads and was found to run slightly erratically and was not as responsive as would be anticipated (investigation required), no undue noises or visible leaks or issues within the confines of the inspection, although the clutch pedal was noted to be sitting high and seemingly incorrectly adjusted. Having run the vehicle to normal operating temperature at increased “revs” I would have anticipated that the battery would have taken some charge and be able to restart when turned off, this was not the case, thus reiterating the RAC findings that the battery is defunct. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that if the vehicle were attempted to be driven and it was “stalled” in traffic it would not be able to be restarted without assistance. However, it was apparent that the rocker cover had been removed and refitted recently with “tooling marks evident to bolts) gasket sealer was also noted to be present around the throttle body.Various wiring clips are insecure with evidence to suggest that the wiring loom and some connections have been disturbed, it can only be assumed that this has been during the course of maintenance/investigations. A screwdriver is also noted as being present to the engine undertray No road test was undertaken. Wiring connection seal and screwdriver
BRAKING SYSTEM Satisfactory on static testing
COMMENTS/DISCUSSION Having viewed the MOT history online, I note the vehicle passed its MOT on14/12/20 showing 56101 miles, at inspection the vehicle was displaying 56110 meaning the vehicle has covered 9 miles since passing the MOT. As the vehicle has only covered a couple of miles in the purchaser’s possession and been transported to and from vendor, it can only be assumed the remainder of the 9 miles was covered prior to the transaction. Whilst I have viewed the vehicle some time since the initial delivery/purchase I would suggest that some defects were present at the point of sale. I make this conclusion due to the time lapse and limited mileage cover since purchase. Therefore, following the attempted remedial works, I am sceptical on the condition at delivery but on the balance of probabilities I do not believe this vehicle was in a roadworthy condition or fit for purpose at the point of sale. Based on the condition at my inspection following I can say without doubt that the vehicle is not fit for purpose or roadworthy currently.
CONCLUSION The presence of the discarded bolts etc within the footwell visible on entry give no confidence to the use of the vehicle. Noting the RAC reports there are numerous other unidentified issues with the vehicle, requiring further investigation. In my opinion the previously mentioned issues are generally due to a lack of reasonable skill and care, leaving the vehicle not fit for purpose and in an unroadworthy condition. As the passenger airbag is located in the insecure dash and is safety related, should deployment occur this could have a detrimental effect on the safety of the vehicle and its occupants. Therefore, I consider that the vehicle was in an unroadworthy condition in that its use on a road could involve a danger of injury to a person. To reiterate I believe that the defects noted are of a long-standing nature and were present at the point of sale and in the balance of probabilities were also present and visible. I reserve the right to amend or alter the content of this report should further evidence be presented or come to light that may affect the or change the opinions and conclusions within. The images enclosed have not been altered or digitally enhanced other than resizing for insertion within and I enclose the original jpeg images as an attachment for ease of viewing, should they be required. I understand that my duty in providing reports and giving evidence is to help the court and that this duty overrides any obligation to the instructing parties. I confirm that I have complied with my duties. I confirm that insofar as the facts stated in my report are within my own knowledge, I have made it clear which they are and I believe them to be true, and that the opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinion. I confirm that I have not entered into any arrangement where the amount of payment of my fees is in any way dependent upon the outcome of the case. I understand that in carrying out the function as expert witness, my duty is to the court and I will act in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules.
Comment