Another MBF VT thread

[Donverdi]

Re: Another MBF VT thread

I'm on holiday at the moment and don't have the facilities to do this. I'll see what I can do when I get back to the UK

[Donverdi]

Re: Another MBF VT thread

Okay...here goes...the result! I lost.

It took about 10 minutes to go through the facts of the case and for him to reach his decision. In his opinion it was clear that at the outset that I had agreed to MBF's terms which very much included me accepting the excess mileage costs. With regards to the oft quoted and relied upon 'nothing more to pay' statement, he said that this does not overrule MBF's terms and that it should be interpreted as 'nothing more to pay, apart from what you have contractually agreed to' i.e excess miles. My courtroom drama legal skills deserted me at this point, so I accepted his ruling and will pay up as per the judgement. Fortunately I don't have to pay their barrister costs which they were requesting.

As a final comment, there are some things worth noting which may or may not have made a difference. First off, I could have prepared better and submitted witness statements etc. Secondly I could have instructed solicitors to handle the case. However, the amount was only about £1,000 so hardly worth the additional cost. In any event I very much got the impression from the Judge that his view was that wording of the contract was crystal clear and that I was liable, so I doubt any amount of preparation would have made a difference in this instance.

So, a word of caution to anybody out there who is told by an enthusiastic car salesman that they don't have to pay the excess miles, you might not have to but in this case I certainly do.

[R0b]

Re: Another MBF VT thread

Disappointing.. did you make any reference to section 100 of the CCA and what the judges comments were on that? or did you not mention it?

The termination statement quite clearly states that they will then be entitled to XYZ and if you have already paid it then you will not have to pay anything more. I'm surprised the judge thought the words 'pay nothing more' also includes any other contractual charges when the sentence preceding those words says exactly what they will be entitled to, but hey that's one view of looking at it and its only a CC decision so it is not binding on other other county court cases.

However, it is a lesson learnt that preparation is key and perhaps if the judge had the necessary background to the CCA and relevant evidence then he/she may have been swayed. There is of course the option to appeal but you need permission at a cost of £120 but only if you wish to continue otherwise it will be a case of paying up and accepting the judgment.

[Donverdi]

Re: Another MBF VT thread

No I didn't make reference to this as my understanding of the legislation is at best very limited and I'd be attempting to use this to my advantage when I'm not sure really how to use it.

However, yes I think you're right - preparation is key and had the £ value being contested been higher, then engaging the services of a solicitor might well have been worthwhile.

[R0b]

Re: Another MBF VT thread

That's fair enough, I think even had you dropped section 100 into the mix, things could have been different because you could have said it limits your liability exactly as the express statement and it does explicitly say that, provided you refer to the definition of 'total price'. Though this is of course in hindsight. At least on the brighter side you didn't have to pay their legal costs.

[Donverdi]

Re: Another MBF VT thread

Lesson learned and thanks for your help throughout this matter.