The waiting was about starting a legal action but not wanting to do that until the chargeback decision. The subject access request should have been sent almost 4 weeks ago because if you get a chargeback refusal next week, you still won't really be able to start an action until 30 days have elapsed from the date you sent the subject access request. So you have delayed things unnecessarily. Also I see that five hours ago you said you didn't know what a subject access request was. It would have been a good idea to find out about it when we first suggested sending the SAR. Please will you make sure that you ask questions if you aren't sure about things. Otherwise it just causes unnecessary delay, work for us and greater risk for you. There is nothing to like about it

Then it would have been helpful if you had explained that. The subject access request should have been sent 27 days ago on the 2nd February. I suggest you send it now.

On February 2 we advised you to send a subject access request. Today it seems that you didn't send it at all. Why not? There is a 30 day statutory time limit for this and in another three or four days, they would have been in breach and you would have been in a great position to take further action on it. Instead you have simply let it go. If you want us to help you that you really will have to follow advice or at least explain that you aren't going to follow it and tell us why. You simply causing delays for yourself and playing into the hands of these dealers – as well as using up the resources of this forum

Jonathan is the main target – but anybody can respond. We don't care

I asked you who the lessor was. You haven't reponded. I asked you if you have signed an agreement and you haven't responded

Send identical letters but use "cc." so that everyone can see who else has received copies. I don't believe that I have mentioned FYI at all have I? .

I see that the two documents you have posted above are some kind of hire agreement. It would also be helpful in future if you could post documents in a single file multipage format. Multiple files are unhelpful to us – especially when they are not named in a way which indicates what their contents. I see that the first page is an unsigned agreement – at least only signed by somebody who is identified as the lessor. Who is that person? Have you signed an agreement? And by the way, who is the insurer?

Kindertons is rated "Excellent" with 4.4 / 5 on Trustpilot UK.TRUSTPILOT.COM Do you agree with Kindertons's TrustScore? Voice your opinion today and hear what 3,010 customers have already said. Do note that 21% of the trust pilot reviewers give them only one star Log in to Facebook WWW.FACEBOOK.COM Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know. kindertons+accident+management - Google Search WWW.GOOGLE.COM we have heard of this kind of thing before where an insurer apparently recommends some other company which turns out to be a hire company and then tries to recover the hire fees from whoever they can. Ahem. I expect that my site team colleague @dx100uk will be along fairly soon because I know that he has a fair-minded experience of these situations and also will know the name of at least one or two of the other companies who are on the same game. I haven't looked at your post documents yet but for the moment sign nothing And by the way, you have been here since 2009. Surely you must know by now that we don't appreciate solid blocks of text. It makes story is very difficult to read especially when people are using small screens such as telephones. I have restructured your opening post for you – but I'd rather not have to do it again

Don't forget that if this goes to court, your son will have to be there and will have to deal with the paperwork. It might actually be empowering for your son who has suffered the disadvantage of dyslexia throughout his life to be able to take control and to look at the result with some pride. First of all I should say to you that my view of your son's status as a seller of the vehicle differs from that of my site team colleagues above. He bought the vehicle expressly to make a profit from it and although there is probably a thin line, I would say that he falls under the definition of a trader for the purposes of this transaction. This might be surprising – but I'm afraid that that seems to be the law and if the purchase of this vehicle realises that your son was only a short-term owner of the vehicle and did by expressly for the purposes of reselling it and making a profit, then your purchaser may well then start to rely on their rights under the consumer rights act – and I think that there is a fair chance that a judge would find against your son. Luckily for you, the claimant seems to have no idea what they are doing – and in particular they have made a very wild allegation about the possibility of a fraudulent MOT without any supporting evidence. I think that you should litter have your draft defence before you send it off. I suspect that time is running out so you had better do this quickly. I certainly wouldn't defend on the basis that it was a private sale. I don't think it was and if the claimant has any evidence that it was a vehicle bought specifically for resale then I think that the judge would immediately find against you and all of the allegations of fraud et cetera would fall to one side. I think I would keep quiet on that basis and I would simply say that the MOT was obtained perfectly correctly from a reputable garage. That the allegation of a fraudulent MOT is extremely serious and that you require that the claimant should produce evidence of this in court. Can you tell us anything about the cracked tyres? Have you spoken to the MOT station? Also I'd like to know about the hole in the engine block. If there is a hole then as has already been pointed out, this would produce a fairly obvious leakage of oil. I think in a defence I would say that you believe that a hole in the engine block would lead to a fairly catastrophic emptying of the oil onto the ground and render the vehicle quite a driveable. Despite this, the purchaser drove it away and there was no oil around when the vehicle was inspected. You require have evidence of the hole but your position at the moment is that the hole occurred after the vehicle was driven away and was not present at the point of sale. If you make these points – but keep well away from the issue of whether or not it was a private sale then you stand a chance.

What is the name of the firm that you have been dealing with? You should obtain quotations from independent firms for undoing the shoddy work which has been carried on your property in order to return it to the state that it was in before that work was undertaken. The work involved might be substantial – but that is not important. The important thing is that it is done to a proper standard so that you are in a position where you can start again and instruct a firm in which you have confidence. Once you have comparative quotations, you will send them to the firm that has carried out the poor quality work and warn them that if they do not reimburse you for the cost of the work on the basis of the cheaper of the two quotations that you will sue them. The remedial work will have to be carried out and you will eventually have to present them with a bill for payment. If they won't pay then you have to produce the bill in court. What is the name of the firm you are dealing with?

Have they responded to your subject access request?

Good but send the other letter as well as agreed above together with enclosures

Yes. I had missed that step

This is quite normal. They will stretch every limit and delay everything in order to cause problems and stress for you and cost to the taxpayer funded County Court system. They don't really care because the taxpayer is paying

Great. It will be very entertaining to see the reaction. Now are you in the mood for starting a small claim on the basis of their data protection breach – the failure to respond to the subject access request? You please wait months – and this should be much simpler and much lower risk in terms of cost outlay. I would suggest that if you are up for it that you get ready to issue a claim for £100 for distress for failure to respond to your subject access request. They would be really stupid to defend it and in fact they would even be stupid to allow it to go through as a claim – but you need to be ready. The cost of issuing the claim will be £35. I would also make a complaint to the information Commissioner's office Data protection and personal information complaints tool ICO.ORG.UK Find out what to do next if you’ve had a problem accessing your personal information from an organisation, or if you’re unhappy about how an... This will be a very easy complaint to make. You would upload a copy of your subject access request. Information Commissioner won't do much but you will get response and eventually they will come back to you and simply say that there has probably been a breach. They tend not to say anything more than that that this will be good enough if you find that you do have to go beyond simply issuing the claim. Let us know if you would like to do this. The hundred quid is useful – but the main thing really is to harass them and to emphasise how incompetent they are. This will stand you in good stead if we have to have further litigation to bring the whole agreement to an end.

By the way, the purpose of circulating this to everybody is to cause maximum embarrassment and also division between them. If they start arguing between themselves, this will help you.

Okay – I had misread your post above. The draft letter is fine. I suggest that you send it off to each one of the recipients. Make sure that you have a full set of the enclosures for each one so that everybody is in the loop completely. I notice that I missed out the dealership in the copies. Send a copy to the dealership as well with a full set of enclosures. That means that everybody gets a letter +3 enclosures. In fact I suddenly realise that I haven't advise you to enclose your own response as well – the one that you sent to Jonathan Hall in response to his application notice this should be sent as well so that means that there are four enclosures. You will see that in the complaint letter to the SRA I have referred specifically to that one as well. Sorry to cause confusion. Please will you let us know that you understand. We will do a brief letter to the SRA – by way of a covering letter. Complaint letter to the SRA please will you confirm that you understand all of this and let us know when you send it off. I suggest that you keep proof of posting on each one. It's all a nuisance of course but we are pushing forward with this and making progress – slowly. Now that you have a good Internet connection – hopefully things will go more smoothly

Are you saying that you can't see the amendment to the draft letter which I posted above on Sunday at 10.23? are you telling us that you can't see the letter in that post at all?

We need to see the letter. Yes they monitor the site and the Facebook complaints page. We are scrupulously honest in what we do so we aren't at all worried. Get the letter and post it up here. Please don't delay. There is nothing else we can say until we see it at first hand

Yes please. We need to see the whole thing. If your husband is often away then it might be an idea to agree with him that you should receive full copies of all correspondence rather than snippets. I suggest that you don't make any response until we have had an opportunity to comment here. I should tell you straightaway that their demands that you remove comments about them are unenforceable

Still waiting for you to respond to us in respect of this document/offer that you have received. I hope you have sent any response to it yet. Post it up here please

You haven't answered my question as to where you have been for the last month. I notice that you have suddenly popped up again on Facebook. You seem to be asking for help there. You also now say that you have a consultant solicitor who has given you certain advice. Presumably you are paying that person some money. You are asking for help here. We are very happy to help and we are probably about the most aggressive source of help that you will find – but simply because we don't charge you money, you don't seem to take us very seriously. We are volunteers. We do everything free of charge. We are happy to help you but we don't want you to waste our time – and it seems that that is what you are doing at the moment. If you want to have a good chance of settling this matter then you need to decide where you are going to get your help from and stick with that. What do you mean by a "letter for repair to protest"?

Yes please. We would like to see the letter as quickly as possible.

The last messages were posted on this thread on the 28th of January. That is a full month ago. Where have you been since then?

Well done. This is great news and thank you for letting us know. I'm sure that they have lots of very satisfied customers but certainly the stories that we hear of the customers who do become their victims are extremely bad. I have no idea why they want to levy £250 prior to collection. They are certainly not entitled to do this – but if it smooths the way then of course you should go ahead and do whatever is necessary. Any problems – any glitches – and be sure to let us know. Big Motoring World monitor the threads on this forum. Maybe they are simply acting responsibly or maybe they were aware of what was being advised here and they knew what was coming. Anyway, please do update us as to the final result.