Hi folks, In October I bought a used car together with 6 months warranty ("warranty type 2") through the Scotsure Insurance Company Ltd, which is provided by the Scottish Motor Trading Association. The warranty handbook set out the terms and conditions for the warranty including a list of those parts of the car that are covered and those that are not. Included in the 'Electrics' section of the list of parts that are covered were "indicator unit" and "horn". Now, I discovered recently that the 'tick-tock' sound of the indicator had failed, i.e. the indicator was quiet when it was on. Also, one of the 4 buttons for the horn on the steering wheel did not work. I therefore booked my car in to have the faults diagnosed, and the repair work carried out under the warranty described above. I was surprised to learn that Scotsure would not cover the cost of the repair for either component! Apparently the indicator noise solution is a new dashboard cluster for which the part alone is £300. I do not know what the repair required to the horn involves. Now, my question is this... is there a course of action I can take against the insurance company since they are refusing to repair components which are clearly stated as covered in their warranty? Particularly is there any legislation I can use as a lever in my negotiations with them? I see this as a breach of contract. I have written an initial letter to the company asking them to explain their position and have asked for a repsonse within 14 days. What more can I do, and what course of action is open to me (ultimately small claims court I would imagine)? I am based in Scotland, and the case would be subject to Scottish Law. Thank you for reading.

Actually no - the defence solicitor was instructed to move for deferral on the grounds that 21 days had not elapsed since the service of the summons due to the scheduling error I mentioned above. In that situation the sheriff had no choice but to defer the hearing to another date suitable to both parties. That meant I didn't ever get to present my case to the court as the whole hearing lasted 4 minutes. But he did make it clear that he fully expected RBS to settle the claim before the next hearing. They tried it on a bit by offering a partial settlement, but when I declined that offer, they went on to offer the full amount. Why they couldn't have done that in the first place I don't know, as the claim was under £350, and I'm sure the cost of sending a solicitor to the hearing and generally dealing with my case would have been more than that.

A final update. I sent copies of the bank statements, together with a revised breakdown of the charges to the solicitors in the middle of last week. On returning from an easter break on Tuesday, I received a letter dated 4th April offering me SOME of the amount I had initially claimed. I contacted the firm today (11th April) to ask whether in light of the revised breakdown whether I could expect to receive an amended offer. Lo and behold, they offered me (via e-mail this morning) the full amount I claimed plus the costs of bringing the case against them. I have therefore instructed the court case to dismiss the case. 11th hour stuff. But it just goes to show if you stick at it long enough, they're bound to cave in. Perhaps the fact I had already appeared once in court to pursue my case made them think twice about bluffing this time. I was quite prepared to go all the way. It just goes to show that if you stick at it, read up, stand firm, and don't blink, that at some point before the case comes before a judge or sheriff they will pay up. To all those yet to commence a claim, good luck.

Update - 26th March - Preliminary hearing heard at 10am. I attended court this morning, where a solicitor representing the bank was also present. It was argued that whilst I had lodged a summons with the bank requesting £310 to be repaid, I had not provided a breakdown of the costs with the summons. (Whilst I had previously provided the bank with photocopies of the relevant statements when I initially wrote to them, but had not done so with the summons). I provided a copy of the breakdown of the charges at the hearing. It was also argued that this case was brought too soon due to an administrative error (Sheriff Clerk's office) and more time was requested to prepare the case. Therefore a request was made to defer the hearing to a later date. The hearing was re-scheduled for Thursday April 12th. The sheriff made it quite clear that he expected the matter to be dealt with before the new date, and he hoped that the further hearing would not be necessary. The whole hearing took under 5 minutes. Comments: I was told by the representing solicitor that 'Brodies of Edinburgh' would contact me. A quick google reveals that Brodies are a commercial law practice based in Edinburgh. It may be that the Royal Bank have now adopted a new strategy by defending these cases. Your thoughts as ever are appreciated... DGM17

Depends whether it's in a Scottish Court or an English Court... in your case, the amount exceeds the small claims court limit in either case, so i would consider seriously whether you want to pursue them for the full amount... main reason being that were you to lose, then costs could be awarded against you - not something whihc can happen (as far as I understand) in the small claims court.

It is likely to say both. The letter to myself states: "... and as a gesture of goodwill and without admission of liability of error, in this instance we are prepared to offer you the amount of £310 paid direct to your account..." "To accept this full and final offer..." This seems to be a new, standard, letter which customers of RBS have been receiving recently. I know this becuase the letter goes on to state, "...then we may need to consider if we are prepared to provide you with your existing banking facilities." A nice veiled threat I thought, especially since I no longer hold an account with RBS...

Well, that's the brinkmanship isn't it. It's interesting to see their tactics here... I closed my account in 2005 and transferred all of my banking elsewhere (including insurance policied underwritten by RBS) so I'm not in any danger of having my account closed as has happened in similar cases. I'm also quite willing to represent myself in court armed with the details of exactly which laws have been transgressed (e.g. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999). Of course I hope it doesn't come to that, but it's about time one of these cases did come to court and be argues before a judge (or in my case Sheriff).

Hi there, The court date is this Monday (26th) at 10am. We'll wait and see what the postie brings .

Thanks for the advice & support . The cost incurred in raising the summons is the £39. That is all I would claim, plus interest at the judicial rate. It seems I'll be spending most of this weekend trawling websites such as this very good one, and preparing a watertight case....

Hi there, Similar story here. I had already filed a claim by the time they responded to my original letter, 7 weeks later, offering to settle without liability the full amount. I rejected their offer asking them to include the £39 cost in raising the action + interest on the amount. Anyway, since then they have apparently stated they will appear on the date of the hearing which is on Monday (letter to that effect waiting at home). No hint given as to whether they are disputing the action or not. So, no going back now. Will, as they say, keep you all posted...

Afternoon all, This is a good bit of brinkmanship between myself and RBS... sequence as follows: 22/01/07 Write to RBS asking for £310 to be refunded within 14 days. 06/03/07 6 weeks, no response. Commence claim via small claims court. 09/03/07 RBS respond to letter offering to settle the £310. 15/03/07 I refuse, asking for the cost incurred in raising the summons + interest to be included, else I would see them in court. 21/03/07 Hear from the court that RBS intend to appear at the hearing. Oops. Didn't expect that one. Perhaps I should have settled? Anyway, anyone actually got to the stage where the bank has shown up in court?