sailor sam
-
Posts
5,688 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by sailor sam
-
car sold with full service history
sailor sam replied to salimnina's topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers
Always get lumbered with the more expensive option! I think we can agree that the full service history thing here is pretty much a red herring. The Op would be better focusing on finding out whether the seller is in fact a trader or not and why the "advisories" were removed from the service documents. If they were minor and insignificant, why remove/not disclose them other than to sway a potential buyer to buy the car? -
car sold with full service history
sailor sam replied to salimnina's topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers
Nobody is saying that it is a requirement (legal or otherwise) to have the full service history of a used car. The point here is that the OP has found out that the last service threw up some issues which the seller has decided to "remove" rather than rectify. I am wondering how it would pan out in a court when the buyer argues that he would not have bought the car had he of known about the issues which clearly the seller was aware of. However, that argument would only be valid IF the seller is a trader. -
car sold with full service history
sailor sam replied to salimnina's topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers
Proper service centres and main dealers will highlight potential issues which are picked up during a service on their invoice (sometimes on a separate sheet). This is then stored on their system. The stamp in the service book merely confirms that the service was carried out and when. I have recently bought a second hand car with full service history which also came with all the service invoices. To me, the invoices are part of the history as they contain the detailed "health" history of the car. A fully up to date stamped service book tells you very little. -
car sold with full service history
sailor sam replied to salimnina's topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers
In addition to what I posted previously, what should be remembered is that the SOGA specifically covers the way a consumer is swayed into making the decision in buying a car or not. So again, I wonder why the seller "removed" the advisories, even though they were not that serious. It seems pretty clear to me that it was done so not to put the OP off in buying the car. It also seems pretty clear that the OP would probably not of purchased the car had he of known about the advisories. -
Don't forget that Swinton are only a broker. I'm actually insured by Aviva via Swinton and one of my premiums is coming up for renewal next month. Swinton have already phoned me with the quote which is a little higher than I expected, having full no claims bonus. So I went on line direct to Aviva and low and behold, the quote came out at almost £350 cheaper!
-
car sold with full service history
sailor sam replied to salimnina's topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers
I am fully aware that there is a difference between "wear and tear" and inherent faults thanks. But the question begs, why did the seller "remove" the advisory information from the last service paperwork? Plus there are a couple of items on the list that could be argued as not being wear and tear such as the heater matrix leak. In any event, if the OP believes that the "trader" is masquerading as a private seller, he should report the fact to trading standards. It follows that traders doing this obviously have reason to try and avoid any comeback under the SOGA. -
car sold with full service history
sailor sam replied to salimnina's topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers
Just came across this as I don't get much time to contribute as much as I did these days. Must admit to not reading the entire thread. But from post #1, I think the OP MAY have an avenue to explore. He seems to think that the "private" seller is in fact a trader. We all know that it is in fact illegal for a trader to pose as a private seller and they only do it to avoid their responsibilities under the SOGA. It seems therefore, that the car MAY have some inherent faults which were present at the point of sale. In which case, the OP would have a legitimate reason to write to the seller and ask him to rectify (providing that he can show him as a trader). The OP already states that the keeper details on the V5 do not match the seller. That's a sure sign that all is not well. My advice would be to formally write to the seller and ask him to rectify the faults otherwise you will seek legal advice into whether the car was in fact sold privately or not. If the seller dosn't play ball and the OP is convinced he is a trader, then he should contact trading standards via his local CAB for face to face advice. TS should be interested into the possibility that a trader posing as a private seller. -
advance warning - bus only street
sailor sam replied to athisok's topic in Local Authority Parking and Traffic Offences
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26464354 -
Train Prosecution
sailor sam replied to Passengerr's topic in Public transport (Trains, tubes and buses)
I'm not comfortable with this... I would speak to a solicitor before paying. It maybe financially better to have your day in court. I can't see the court fining you anywhere near that amount. BUT of course you risk having a conviction which i'm sure you don't want. I can't help thinking that SWT are holding a gun against your head in saying "pay up to avoid court". The word "bribe" springs to mind... See a solicitor is my advice now. -
Is the "new" OP going to give us more details so we can advise?
-
This is one of the points I have been trying to make all along. MT told me that the policy would become live the minute the payment was made and in the OP's case, this would of been purchased on line if it was around 7am. As it was a new policy it follows that the OP should of been able to check his policy (on line) to ensure he was covered. Otherwise (IMHO), MT's on line policy purchase method could not be legally safe if a customer had no way of ensuring that he was covered to drive.
-
Can you please start your own thread, this is an old one which may not relate to your issue.
-
No, I think your'e missing the point actually. MT staff are not in a position to just "believe" when a policy starts... they should know for a fact. The repercussions of getting this wrong are enormous when selling car insurance so the word "believe" shouldn't even be in their vocabulary. BUT, the interesting thing about this case is the fact that initially, they appear to have been dealing with the claim.... so why would they then drop it? If they had made a "mistake" in the inception time of the policy, surely it would not of been in their interests to then walk away from their responsibilities to their policy holder? I'm not even sure that they can legally do that which is why I suggest that the OP urgently seeks face to face legal advice. As I see it (assuming that the OP has given us the 100% accurate facts), MT should be up to their chins in the smelly brown stuff here.
-
Conniff, you know too well about my thoughts on selling dodgy cars so i'm far from suggesting giving up. But I will put all the arguments which the OP may find facing in court as I see them. Not being able to demonstrate that you gave a seller (trader or private) the opportunity to rectify in the first instance, will surely prejudice your claim for full reimbursement of your losses. From what the OP is saying about this seller, I think the chances of him paying when any bill is presented to him are pretty remote.
-
I think you've pretty much scuppered you chances of getting anywhere with the cost of the MOT/repairs unless you followed the path which satisfies the SOGA criteria. Did you give (in writing) the seller the reasonable opportunity to rectify the situation? I think what you should of gone for was a straight forward rejection. That would of been less complicated with a more realistic chance of success IMHO. Clearly this is a case of miss-selling and usually is the only path you can go down with a private seller. But if you have started to have the car repaired without giving the seller the opportunity to get the car MOT'd himself, you are going to have big problems here I think.
-
Surely it would be dangerous practice to sell an insurance policy where the policy holder may be unaware that he/she was not in fact insured immediately? And why would they tell me (who could be a potential customer) something that wasn't fact on such a serious matter? But the fact is, by giving the information could prove that there has been some negligence on their part. They are in fact saying that a new policy is live from the moment a payment is made which apparently wasn't the case here. Again, the fact they paid for the release of the car suggest to me that they WERE initially dealing with the claim. I would be interested to know whether legally they can then dismiss it leaving the OP in this mess.
-
Car broken down Seller non-cooperative
sailor sam replied to anvesh's topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers
You are not making things very clear... has the seller agreed to repair the car at no cost to you or not? -
If you go back to post #15, you will see that I actually rang them and asked how it works when taking insurance out on line. Their explanation differs somewhat to the OP's experience as they assured me that the policy is live as soon as the payment is made, no matter what time of day it is. The policy is simply reliant on the information provided and the policy can be cancelled/revoked if at a later stage, if they discover any information which may affect the policy was not disclosed or wrongly disclosed by the policy holder. This is clearly shown in their terms & conditions (as I believe is the general rule to all insurers). They also said that the insurance docs could be uploaded and viewed/printed off as soon as the policy becomes "live".
-
Seems odd that they would begin to "deal" with the claim and then drop it like a hot potato. Buy paying for the recovery fees could be interpreted that they have accepted your claim and will deal with it. There may be a legality in that which is why I think a solicitor may be helpful. The story gets more bizarre each day.
-
Car broken down Seller non-cooperative
sailor sam replied to anvesh's topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers
Hi and welcome to CAG. Forget the warranty as it is only an extension of your statutory rights under the SOGA. Sounds to me like an inherent fault meaning the seller must prove it wasn't present at the point of sale. I've not heard of a pully falling off before so it's pretty clear that something has been done to the car before you bought it. So, seller won't answer you calls eh? Have you been there to speak face to face? In any event, I think you should write a letter indicating that you would like him to repair the car to a standard of what it should be within 7 days following the date of your letter. Indicate that you expect the repairs to be done at no expense to yourself as per sale of goods act 1979 (as amended). As for the recovery fee, well although he should also reimburse you for that, he could argue that you could of got the AA to recover it to him. As for your travel expenses, these could be 'consequential losses'. If you ended up taking the matter to the small claims court, you could add these to your claim (providing you can produce proof) for them to be considered. If the seller fails to respond to your letter or continues to be un-cooperative, then your next step would be to send a "letter before action" (LBA) before ultimately making a claim. Keep copies of all correspondence and it's a good idea to send by recorded delivery. -
The above is all very well but the OP is adamant that the ticket error was not of his making and in fact, paid a higher fare than the one he wanted. Further more, the inspector apparently witnessed the transaction so would surely of recognised that the "error" was not the OP's but that of the ticket clerk. From the OP's account, one would of expected the inspector to of acted completely differently and perhaps approached the OP before he left the ticket sales area and advised him to check the ticket rather than pursue and stop him on the platform. If we are to fully accept the OP's version of events, I for one think he has been treated totally un-fairly and thus should certainly not be peanalised.
-
I for one am not surprised. Congratulations.
-
Wait a minute.... do you mean to say that More Than recovered the car from the Police and paid all the fees? Surely then, by doing so, they have accepted their responsibility for the claim? Have you run this passed a solicitor?
-
Ok following your last posts i've made some checks. According to More Than if you take out a policy at 7am it would be on line as that is the only facility available at that time. Once you purchase the policy (i.e. make payment), the policy is then live from that moment. And as far as your docs are concerned, they are available to print off on line straight away.... they do not send them out through the post unless requested. That is what they told me a few moments ago. Remember, it is the driver's responsibility to ensure he/she is insured and I don't see how you can do that without having sight of the docs, particularly if you had no insurance to begin with. If however what you are saying is that More Than did not cover you from the time you took out the policy and that the error was theirs, then you should forward the claim on to them and insist that they deal with it.
-
Ahh, I do apologise... I missed/forgot that the alternator is the problem. In that case, I would ask the seller to consider authorising a local garage to fit/supply a exchange alternator and a new battery considering you have had this problem just 2 days after purchase. Otherwise in the spirit of good after sales, he may like to waiver the recovery fee to compensate your inconvenience.
