Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

[explorer121]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

Good morning,
the 14 day response limit will be reached on Monday 15th so I guess I will now have to issue a small claim. Have had a look on line and it all seems straightforward. Is there any thing I should be aware of ? I also assume the best route will be Money claim online and I should claim against the Company or the individual ?
Many thanks.

[des8]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

Claiming is pretty straightforward.
You could post up a sanitised version of your particulars of claim for peeps here to check it for you,if you want.
If you purchased from a limited company, name it as defendant, otherwise it is "Mr XX trading as Arfur Daley's Motors"

[explorer121]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

Thank you for the reply. Interestingly the garage is advertising as a non Ltd company on the web yet the only letter received from them states they are limited and is signed by a Director.
I will draft a version of my claim and would appreciate any advice.
Many thanks.

[des8]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

Check their status at companies House (https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-a-company) using webcheck or beta.
Their letter (if a Ltd Co.) should include the following info:
the company’s registered number
its registered office address
where the company is registered (England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland)
the fact that it’s a limited company (usually by spelling out the company’s full name including ‘Limited’ or ‘Ltd’)`

[ostell]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

What does your receipt say about who you bought it from? Have you checked the full details of the company on Companies house?

[explorer121]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

Yes have checked and they are a Ltd Company with two directors even though their letter only shows a VAT number and nothing else. I will therefore direct my claim to the company which is surmised as follows :
Having seen your advertisement for the captioned vehicle, I purchased it by deposit on 30th December 2015 and took delivery on 10th January 2016 by you personally. I discovered that it was not of satisfactory quality:
- bulb in the dash not functioning
- the heater needed adjustment
- The MAP sensor (manifold pressure sensor) needed cleaning to rectify acceleration judder.
- the air bag warning light needed resetting, but the warning light has come on again.
The Fiat Main Dealers, *******, ****** have diagnosed a faulty air bag control unit which must be replaced. The cost of the diagnosis was agreed by prior arrangement and totals £149.40.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires dealers to supply goods of satisfactory quality and from 13 June 2014 the Consumer Contracts Regulations cover distance selling regulations.
You were advised this by letter on 16 January 2016 and I declared my intention to exercise my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2016 to reject the goods.
I required refund of the purchase price £3749.00 and the cost £149.40 of diagnosing the faults by the Fiat main dealers ******* plus accumulated interest for loss of use totaling £27 together with the Court fees.
To date you have responded to my claim, letter received 18.1.16, by offering a partial refund of £3499 which does not represent the claimed amount. Despite offering alternative dispute resolution no further response has been received.
I am left with a car that has an airbag warning light constantly on and is unfit for safe driving.
The vehicle is at my home address awaiting collection.
I therefore claim :
£3749 purchase of car.
£149.40 Fiat diagnosis.
£27.00 loss of use and interest.
£185.00 Court fees.

Total £4110.04.

[explorer121]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

Yes have checked and they are a Ltd Company with two directors even though their letter only shows a VAT number and nothing else. I will therefore direct my claim to the company which is surmised as follows :
Having seen your advertisement for the captioned vehicle, I purchased it by deposit on 30th December 2015 and took delivery on 10th January 2016 by you personally. I discovered that it was not of satisfactory quality:
- bulb in the dash not functioning
- the heater needed adjustment
- The MAP sensor (manifold pressure sensor) needed cleaning to rectify acceleration judder.
- the air bag warning light needed resetting, but the warning light has come on again.
The Fiat Main Dealers, *******, ****** have diagnosed a faulty air bag control unit which must be replaced. The cost of the diagnosis was agreed by prior arrangement and totals £149.40.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires dealers to supply goods of satisfactory quality and from 13 June 2014 the Consumer Contracts Regulations cover distance selling regulations.
You were advised this by letter on 16 January 2016 and I declared my intention to exercise my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2016 to reject the goods.
I required refund of the purchase price £3749.00 and the cost £149.40 of diagnosing the faults by the Fiat main dealers ******* plus accumulated interest for loss of use totaling £27 together with the Court fees.
To date you have responded to my claim, letter received 18.1.16, by offering a partial refund of £3499 which does not represent the claimed amount. Despite offering alternative dispute resolution no further response has been received.
I am left with a car that has an airbag warning light constantly on and is unfit for safe driving.
The vehicle is at my home address awaiting collection.
I therefore claim :
£3749 purchase of car.
£149.40 Fiat diagnosis.
£27.00 loss of use and interest.
£185.00 Court fees.

Total £4110.04.

Check their status at companies House (https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-a-company) using webcheck or beta.
Their letter (if a Ltd Co.) should include the following info:
the company’s registered number
its registered office address
where the company is registered (England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland)
the fact that it’s a limited company (usually by spelling out the company’s full name including ‘Limited’ or ‘Ltd’)`

[ostell]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

Can you check that the VAT number actually belongs to them?

[explorer121]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

Thanks, yes I have verified the VAT number and their home address's as well.

[des8]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

If it were my claim I would keep the particulars simple:
You advertised Vehicle Fiat XXXX Registration NO. xxxxxxx in XYZ
I purchased it by deposit on 30th December 2015 and took delivery on 10th January 2016
The vehicle was not of satisfactory quality,and I advised you I was rejecting it under rights bestowed by
Consumer Rights Act 2015,
This was as described in a Letter before Action dated 16 January 2016
Your conditional offer of a refund on return of the vehicle is not acceptable and therefore I claim:
£3749 purchase of car.
£149.40 Fiat diagnosis.
£10.00 per diem loss of use, or as the court may direct
£185.00 Court fees.
The claimantclaims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% perannum and continuing at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlierpayment.

[explorer121]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

Thank you, it reads much better than my version which you correctly point out is too detailed. I will draft a claim for transposing onto the required form. Many thanks.

[explorer121]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

Good evening,
having sent a MCOL summons on the 14.1.16 I have received the following information from the MCOL website :
You submitted a claim on 14/02/2016 at 15:08:26


Your claim was issued on 15/02/2016


A bar was put in place for ***** CARS ******** LTD on 19/02/2016


***** CARS ******** LTD filed a part admission on 19/02/2016

I can not see what is part admitted to the claim from the website nor do I quite understand the 'bar' statement. Presumably the Court will now write and detail the part admission to see if I will accept this.
Any information to help me understand this would be much appreciated,
many thanks.

[des8]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

The "bar" is a stop to prevent you obtaining a default judgement as the defendant is admitting part of claim, but disputing the remainder.
You will in due course receive papers from the court detailing the position and your options.

[explorer121]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

Sorry should have read this :
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/...tart-guide.pdf

Part Admission – the defendant wishes to dispute part of the claim. The defendant should explain how much of the claim they are disputing and make an offer of payment for the remainder. You will be sent a copy and asked whether you wish to proceed with your claim. If the defendant submits their response online, you will also be able to view a copy from your homepage.

[explorer121]

Re: Used car faulty after six days from purchase.

Good evening,
I have received a letter from the Court with an offer and part admission of the claim. Copy attached. Needless to say I have not accepted this and will be pursuing the full cost of the claim.
I now await the questionnaire from the Court.
There has been no mention of the £149.40 for the Fiat dealer's diagnosis which was agreed by the trader in writing, they have also mentioned a warranty which I have no paperwork for.
Hopefully this will rest in my favour.