Hello, thanks for replies, unfortunately it's not a genuine Land Rover part. It was manufactured by a company called British Gasket Group, who are one of the leading manufacturers. The thing is, the head gasket is more than likely ruined as the car was driven for some time before he realized it over heated. My supplier have said they just do a straight swap if old gasket is returned. BGG need the gasket back, and if they determine the gasket caused the failure (which would be very hard to do) they would reimburse the cost to sort engine. If only it was that easy. The cylinder head got skimmed last time, and the cylinder head can't be skimmed again (for non motoring folk, skimming is a process where the surface of the engine is milled away to ensure it is perfectly flat). These heads can only really be skimmed once, as the surface of the cylinder head isn't very thick to start with. Because it's over heated, the cylinder head will have warped, but is now rendered scrap as the head cNnot be skimmed again. I can go out to him and confirm if the head gasket has failed by running a few tests, but is it my responsibility to replace the head, the gasket (and associated parts), and then peruse the claim for the money back myself, or is this down to the customer?

Apologies for the question and my naivety, but in nearly 5 years I have never had a customer come back with a faulty part. I am a mechanic, I fit hundreds of parts every year with no problem. Last year in around September, I fitted a Head Gaskets set, and Timing belt kit to an MG zed using a k series engine (famous for head gasket failure, I have done dozens). 6 months after the job, I get a call from an Irate customer who says his car has overheated on the motorway and the AA say the header gasket has failed. I am skeptical, as I fitted the modified gasket Land Rover released after year of the old type failing. I am convinced that the head gasket has only failed because the car overheated initially, and something else caused the car to overheat, but as he kept driving with the car at maximum temp, he has cooked the gasket. Also, he stated he had no other problems before that day, and head gaskets usually give you fair warning before going up in smoke. if it did turn out to be the part at fault, the supplier can make a like for like replacement, or it can be sent to manufacturer for a labour claim to be submitted (they will pay for remedial work if found to be faulty) But who pays for the removal of the part? If I remove it and the gasket is found to be OK, then I've wasted a days work. If he is so convinced that the head gasket has failed, is it fair to ask for a deposit on the work until a labour claim has been submitted? I don't expressly offer warranty, but obviously all parts are covered by manufacturer warranty. Please let me know where I stand in this situation. Thanks.

Oh, the manufacture is Samsung BTW.

Could try that I suppose. Only problem then is I have thrown away the pay as you go SIM and the box that came with it aswell. Might aswell make it a hatrick by the looks of things then and bin the phone aswell! Brig, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm struggling to make it any more clear that this is not an ever changing story. I haven't implied once that I still have the charger. If I have, it's clearly hypothetically. I'll just accept the fact that it can't be repaired. Apple have great customer service (apart from having to make an appointment). When my iPhone broke, I just took the phone (not the charger, box, earphones) and they replaced it there and then. They didn't ask for proof of purchase or anything.

Brigadier, I think you are confused. My charger is well and truly in the bin. I said that in my case, I am only claiming the phone is faulty. This just doesn't seem right. I don't want the charger repaired, there is nothing wrong with the sim. Why do they need the lot back to exchange/repair it! Also "A customer cannot just 'bin' components of a package and then expect a replacement, this is beyond unreasonable.' I think it's pretty unreasonable a phone has broken within weeks of ownership! I don't want a full replacement, they can keep the charger and sim, they can even get the phone repaired if they want. If I brought a new car, and the engine blew up a week later, would my warranty be void if I threw away the mats that came with the car? This seems stupid! Thanks for input.

Surely it should at least be repaired? I'm not claiming the charger or sim to be faulty, just the phone they have sold me. So, not really expecting a full refund, just a handset replacement or forint to be repaired. Thanks again.

And lol on the Halloween. Missed that one.

Yep. Already had the manager down, getting a laminated a3 piece of paper with their returns policy on it. Got the receipt and everything! They say the manufacturer won't accept it back, so Asda will lose money. I've lost money!! Lol I'm actually sat in the mcdonalds next door hoping to get a reference to some consumer law, so I can march back in on my high horse. True, should have sent it back with faulty charger. My bad, I had a few spare samsung style chargers lying around, and didn't think!

Hi. Just having a few issues trying to return a phone purchased from Asda. It has recently started turning itself off, and Asda accept that it is faulty. However, they refuse to repair/exchange it as I haven't got the charger. (The charger didn't hold itself in phone from day 1 so it went in the bin) Surely they cannot refuse this claim just because the charger and original sim is missing! The phone is only a month old. They say that there polocy has to be in line with the law. Surely the law is on my side here! Thanks for reading. Rhys.

Do I have to go into full detail (and attach evidence such as letters from landlord and tenancy agreement) on the claim form? Thanks.

Has anybody else got any thoughts on this? Thanks.

Sorry, just to add. Is there any legal legislation in place to make landlords keep deposits in a scheme? It was just a coincidence that he brought a new car a few days after I handed over the first payment. Cheers

Thanks for the information, I don't mean to come across like I don't want to waste energy on this. Obviously it would be a huge help if I could recover some of my losses. Anyway, I have no proof that the landlord agreed to allow the property to be sub let. When questioned about this, he stated that the sub letter told him I was there to tint car windows and similar things. Therefore, as that task wouldn't interfere with the other garage, he agreed the property could be sublet. For some reason, even though the sub letter deceived both of us (it seems), the main landlord is being about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. Good news I can enforce it, to be honest this is all inspired by a tv show I was watching presented by Dom littlewood! So, I have the court papers, ready to fill out. What amount do I claim? Do I have to gather receipts of equipment purchases and include those, make copies of tenancy agreement and send those along too? It's just there doesn't seem a lot of space on the form to highlight everything. Thanks again.

Also, just to add. The guy in question is the most unprofessional, manipulative and deceptive man I have ever come across. All I know is that he runs afew car washes in the local area. He claimed to own properties (like houses and another garage) but I think they are just tall tales he said to try and impress me. If I were to take the matter to court, I highly doubt he would open the letter let alone turn up. And even if it went in my favour, I doubt further he would comply with any financial penalty imposed!

Thanks for for the reply. Although not what I really wanted to hear, as obviously the main landlord has a lot more to lose than the ropey character I actually 'let' from. I was hoping he would have to approve of any sublet tenant. Anyway, it wasn't just the rubbish they are saying caused a reduction in deposit. They are also saying because I didn't return the keys (because I was receiving threats) they had to change the padlock on gate. I know for a fact they haven't done this, as the same padlock is still on there now. What (if any) chance have I got of getting anything back. It's just I don't really want to sink more money into taking the matter to court, and not get anything back in return. Thanks again

Hello. It's been a while since I last posted on here, but troubles have arisen once again! This dates back to January this year, I have only just gotten myself back on my feet, so feel au am now ready to tackle this. This is very complicated, I'll do my best to explain. There was a lot of naiveity on my part, as I was new to the situation. But overriding this was a huge amount of deception and lies being told by the third parties. So, in September 2012, I contacted a number on a sign displayed outside a small commercial unit, with a view to leasing the property. I hastily arranged a meeting with a man claiming to be the landlord (this will make more sense as I go on). He told me to meet him at his 'office' which turned out to be his car in the car park of his car wash. He brought with him a tenancy agreement. I had a good read through, although it seemed very generic, it did make direct reference to the property. A deposit of £600 was agreed, with a monthly rent of £600 to follow. I paid this fee in cash later that day, and was handed the keys. I immediately set out to purchase relevant equipment. I was opening a two bay car service and repair workshop. I purchased a brand new hydraulic car lift, a compressor and various tools at a cost of approximately £2500. I also purchased various signage and livery at a further cost of £600. Additional costs were incurred in the form of insurance, advertising and various legal costs. Things started well, and business was picking up. I arranged to fit my main sign above the unit. Once fitted, I got a very informal 'text' message informing me that the sign needed to be taken down, as the 'main' landlord disapproved. I questioned this, as it was the first time I had ever heard of the main landlord. He gave the impression he was the property holder. This aroused my suspicions. After a lot of back and forth conversations, it was agreed, that if the words 'servicing, repairs and Tyres' were removed (leaving only my business name) then it could remain. He then revealed this was due to a garage on the same estate complaining I had taken all of his customers. To this I thought, what has it got to do with me? Why are you intervening? Anyway, desperate to continue, I failed to comply, and the sign remained.it was as I erected more signs the problem got worse. I was having a torrid time (with all of the sign issues, the confusion over who the landlord was and also parking problems). Out of the blue one day, the guy who owned the other garage came to me, at first there was tension, but after he explained what was going on I completely understood. It turned out, the whole estate (compromising of 3 buildings and one outdoor use area (another car wash ) was owned (under a 99 year lease) by the same company. A very large property agent in my area, 'lex Allen'. When the garage owner took out his lease over 20 years ago, it was under the proviso he had exclusivity of any motor trade use, meaning my unit could not be used in any way related to the motor industry. He also detailed that at the time of his lease, the estate was bigger, but the council opted to build a bypass straight though the middle of it. The council gave the land a covenant (or something along those lines) saying that there was only certain permitted uses of the land, ( meaning that it couldn't be bulldozed to make way for a KFC). A few days after this, I receive a letter from Lex Allen, telling me to immediately vacate the property. As you can imagine, this was difficult, as all of my equipment was installed, and I was in utter shock! Anyway, I left the unit, and arranged a meeting with Lex Allen. He told me that he had a conversation with the man who he leased the property to (who sub-let it to me) he gave him express permission to let it to me, provided it was not in conjunction with the motor trade. Obviously, it is now clear the man who sub let it to me completely disregarded his instructions, and continued to let it to me. In the lease contract he gave to me which fortunately I still have, it was clearly written that the property was to be used for the purpose of maintaining and repairing cars. He refused to return my deposit of £600, stating that it cost that to dispose of two bin bags of rubbish (which weren't even mine) So, was left jobless, penniless and completely disheartened. I had put everything into that business in the 6 months I was there. I am so sorry about the long story I have told. I suppose the question I want to ask his, where do I go from here? Do I take one of them or both of them to small claims court? Should Lex Allen have made more checks? In trying to contact Lex Allen, he is refusing to sign for my letters, and will not arrange another meeting. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Hi. Please go easy when I ask this! I am asking for advice before I take out any insurance. Sainsbury's are doubling my insurance quote (from £500 to £1000) for an sp30 speeding offence. This is for a named driver, and resulted in 3 points and £60 FPN. I ask if I should include this, as on the quote for it asks if you have had any CONVICTIONS in the last 5 years. I was under the impression that an FPN was not a conviction, as you can only be convicted of something by a court. When you try and add a conviction it asks you this: ''Please select any convictions this driver has had in the last 5 years from the drop down list below. You will find the exact conviction type including any codes on their driving licence'' Am I under any obligation to declare the 3 points?, as it specifically asks for convictions. Thanks guys.

Cheers for replies. Yes that was my other thread, but started a new one as it dried up. Im waiting for a response from council so will update then. I am going to pay the council what i owe them, so atleast they will be happy. Thanks again

Thanks for the reply. Have sent a letter to the Council, so will await a reply from them. I can see them sticking uup for Bristow and Sutor though!

Hi, just a new thread as the old one dried up. Basically, I have a case with bristow and sutor for unpaid council tax, which I am willing to pay for in full, but can't get my head around why they are charging me for 3 first time visits, when they have only been once. There are 3 seperate cases but they are dealing with them all together, I only have one reference number. Heres a breakdown of the charges: Amount owed - 97.89 1st visit fee - 24.50 levy fee - 24.50 Council tax property 2: Amount owed - 187.82 1st visit fee - 24.50 levy fee - 29.00 Council tax 3: Amount owed - 186.59 1st visit fee - 24.50 levy fee - 29.00 Anyway, I sent a letter questioning them, and got this reply: Dear Sir, RE: Outstanding Council Tax due to Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council We write with reference to the above and confirm receipt of your recent email We would respectfully advise when we attended on 18.05.12 this was our first visit and so the first visit fee of £24.50 was applied to each of your liability orders, as they are three separate accounts we can charge a fee for each and refer you to the back of the Notice of seizure of Goods were the fees are outlined. We then attended your property again on 31.07.12 where our levy was made and fees were applied to your accounts for this also, we can charge this in addition to a first visit fee and again refer you to the Notice of seizure of goods were this is also stated. We are currently in the process of confirming with the DVLA who the vehicle belongs to if we confirm you are not the registered owner then the levy fees will be reviewed. Please note the Council are aware of what fees can be charged and our procedures. Finally we are prepared to allow until 20.08.12 for a proposal of payment to be received in our offices to be reviewed. Failure to comply will result in further recovery action being taken against you for which any additional costs incurred you will be liable for. Yours Faithfully, Miss L Green Recovery Officer Are they correct, don't really know where to turn next. Thanks so much guys.

Just a quick bump.

Cheers once again everyone really appreciate it. Please excuse my grammar as i am typing this on my phone! Bristow and sutor have replied with this, few things i dont understand. First of all they are saying they have charged a 1st visit fee on two seperate days? Secondly, I have never had contact from them about the first date they specify. And finally, they still say they made levy on the same car 3 times? Can anyone help pitmy mind at ease: Dear Sir, RE: Outstanding Council Tax due to Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council We write with reference to the above and confirm receipt of your recent email We would respectfully advise when we attended on 18.05.12 this was our first visit and so the first visit fee of £24.50 was applied to each of your liability orders, as they are three separate accounts we can charge a fee for each and refer you to the back of the Notice of Seizure of Goods were the fees are outlined. We then attended your property again on 31.07.12 where our levy was made and fees were applied to your accounts for this also, we can charge this in addition to a first visit fee and again refer you to the Notice of Seizure of goods were this is also stated. We are currently in the process of confirming with the DVLA who the vehicle belongs to if we confirm you are not the registered owner then the levy fees will be reviewed. Please note the Council are aware of what fees can be charged and our procedures. Finally we are prepared to allow until 20.08.12 for a proposal of payment to be received in our offices to be reviewed. Failure to comply will result in further recovery action being taken against you for which any additional costs incurred you will be liable for. Yours Faithfully, Miss L Green Recovery Officer

Sorry, I have also been charged: Redemption of goods fee (Head H) 24.50

Thanks for clearing that up. Just found it in the Local Government Ombudsman thread, which I can use as abit of ammo. Onto the next question. Can they levy one car for all three LO's Amount owed - 97.89 1st visit fee - 24.50 levy fee - 24.50 Council tax property 2: Amount owed - 187.82 1st visit fee - 24.50 levy fee - 29.00 Council tax 3: Amount owed - 186.59 1st visit fee - 24.50 levy fee - 29.00

Ok, abit worried now. Ive just read that if the liability orders were made on different dates, it allows the bailiffs to charge a 1st visit fee for each liability order. I am not too sure what date the orders were made, but they have always been listed on the same notice, never separately. Also, even if this is true, don't they contradict this by levying the same car for all 3 orders? Hopefully I am wrong and they indeed can't charge 3 first visit fee's. There is only one case reference. Just so lost! Have got the money to pay them but don't want to pay over the odds! Cheers once again.