Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Used car missing parcel shelf
990 views
Skip to first unread message
Humbug
Oct 25, 2013, 6:15:02 AM10/25/13
to
On Tuesday this week I bought a used car from a dealer, which I had
seen advertised on Auto Trader.
As I was about to drive away, it saw that the parcel shelf wasn't in
place. Goodness knows how I managed to miss that before - it was only
when I put my bag in the boot that I noticed it. I went back into the
showroom, and a member of staff went ot look for it.
She came back a few minutes later and said that they coudn't find it,
and that it probably had not been present in the car when they
acquired it.
When I got home, I checked the photographs on the listing in Auto
Trader, and found that one of them did show the parcel shelf.
I called the dealer straight away, and the manager told me that they
would look for it again, and he would call me back later in the day.
On Thuirsday I had still heard no more from them so I rang again. This
time I spoke to the young lady who had first looked for the shelf, and
she said that they were trying to sort something out for me and
suggested that they would either supply a shelf or give me a partial
refund.
She said that she would get back to me the same day.
This morning at 11:40 she finally called back, and this time she said
that their parts manager was certain that they never had the shelf.
I mentioned the photograph which they had taken showed it in place;
she said she didn't have access to the photographs.
Then she said that the manager had authorised her to help me find a
replacement, but that they would not supply it or pay for it.
She mentioned some cheap shelves which she had found on eBay, which
I'd also found, but they are for a different model. One of the
listings even specifically states that it will not fit my car.
So I seem to be on my own now; I have had a quote of £158 from Audi
for a new shelf, and I have found a breaker in Manchester who can
supply a used spare for £72 including delivery and VAT.
Is the dealer obliged to provide me with the shelf, or pay all or part
of the cost of a replacement?
--
Humbug
seen advertised on Auto Trader.
As I was about to drive away, it saw that the parcel shelf wasn't in
place. Goodness knows how I managed to miss that before - it was only
when I put my bag in the boot that I noticed it. I went back into the
showroom, and a member of staff went ot look for it.
She came back a few minutes later and said that they coudn't find it,
and that it probably had not been present in the car when they
acquired it.
When I got home, I checked the photographs on the listing in Auto
Trader, and found that one of them did show the parcel shelf.
I called the dealer straight away, and the manager told me that they
would look for it again, and he would call me back later in the day.
On Thuirsday I had still heard no more from them so I rang again. This
time I spoke to the young lady who had first looked for the shelf, and
she said that they were trying to sort something out for me and
suggested that they would either supply a shelf or give me a partial
refund.
She said that she would get back to me the same day.
This morning at 11:40 she finally called back, and this time she said
that their parts manager was certain that they never had the shelf.
I mentioned the photograph which they had taken showed it in place;
she said she didn't have access to the photographs.
Then she said that the manager had authorised her to help me find a
replacement, but that they would not supply it or pay for it.
She mentioned some cheap shelves which she had found on eBay, which
I'd also found, but they are for a different model. One of the
listings even specifically states that it will not fit my car.
So I seem to be on my own now; I have had a quote of £158 from Audi
for a new shelf, and I have found a breaker in Manchester who can
supply a used spare for £72 including delivery and VAT.
Is the dealer obliged to provide me with the shelf, or pay all or part
of the cost of a replacement?
--
Humbug
R. Mark Clayton
Oct 25, 2013, 11:00:02 AM10/25/13
to
"Humbug" <hum...@tofee.net> wrote in message
news:asfk699gherpiarq2...@4ax.com...
Mark Goodge
Oct 25, 2013, 12:25:02 PM10/25/13
to
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:15:02 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On Tuesday this week I bought a used car from a dealer, which I had
>seen advertised on Auto Trader.
>
>As I was about to drive away, it saw that the parcel shelf wasn't in
>place. Goodness knows how I managed to miss that before - it was only
>when I put my bag in the boot that I noticed it. I went back into the
>showroom, and a member of staff went ot look for it.
>
>She came back a few minutes later and said that they coudn't find it,
>and that it probably had not been present in the car when they
>acquired it.
>
>When I got home, I checked the photographs on the listing in Auto
>Trader, and found that one of them did show the parcel shelf.
[snip]
>Is the dealer obliged to provide me with the shelf, or pay all or part
>of the cost of a replacement?
Yes. You are entitled to the car as illustrated in the photo. Since you
drew attention to the missing shelf before you drove away, and were able to
provide evidence that the car had it when advertised, I don't think the
dealer has a leg to stand on.
Assuming it really is the same car, and you haven't been duped by a photo
which has been altered in some way, then what's probably happened is that
someone else was missing a shelf and they took it out of the one you were
buying in order to replace that.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
typed:
>On Tuesday this week I bought a used car from a dealer, which I had
>seen advertised on Auto Trader.
>
>As I was about to drive away, it saw that the parcel shelf wasn't in
>place. Goodness knows how I managed to miss that before - it was only
>when I put my bag in the boot that I noticed it. I went back into the
>showroom, and a member of staff went ot look for it.
>
>She came back a few minutes later and said that they coudn't find it,
>and that it probably had not been present in the car when they
>acquired it.
>
>When I got home, I checked the photographs on the listing in Auto
>Trader, and found that one of them did show the parcel shelf.
>Is the dealer obliged to provide me with the shelf, or pay all or part
>of the cost of a replacement?
drew attention to the missing shelf before you drove away, and were able to
provide evidence that the car had it when advertised, I don't think the
dealer has a leg to stand on.
Assuming it really is the same car, and you haven't been duped by a photo
which has been altered in some way, then what's probably happened is that
someone else was missing a shelf and they took it out of the one you were
buying in order to replace that.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Humbug
Oct 25, 2013, 2:55:02 PM10/25/13
to
after such parts is no longer with the company.
It's an easy assumption to make that he has been sacked for stealing
parts for his own purposes ... [1]
Whatever the reason, the dealer ostensibly does not have the shelf, so
is unable to let me have it.
I've actually found a cheaper replacement from another breaker, who
has offered it for £42 including delivery and VAT, with a 3 month
guarantee.
As I mentioned in another post, I have done my best to mitigate the
loss.
Should I buy this replacement from the breaker whom I have found, and
present the invoice to the dealer?
Or should I pass on the details of the breaker on to the dealer and
ask them to buy it for me?
A small point, but in the latter case, they'd be able to reclaim the
VAT.
[1] There seems to be an inordinate value applied to parts for this
model. A considerable number of used shelves for older cars (before
2003) and later ones (after 2007) are available at low prices, but
there are only a few available for this one (2006), and the prices are
up to twelve times as much.
I can see how this would be attractive to an unscrupulous parts
handler.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 25, 2013, 2:10:02 PM10/25/13
to
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:00:02 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>"Humbug" <hum...@tofee.net> wrote in message
>>news:asfk699gherpiarq2...@4ax.com...
>>On Tuesday this week I bought a used car from a dealer, which I had
>>seen advertised on Auto Trader.
[snip]
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>"Humbug" <hum...@tofee.net> wrote in message
>>news:asfk699gherpiarq2...@4ax.com...
>>On Tuesday this week I bought a used car from a dealer, which I had
>>seen advertised on Auto Trader.
>>Is the dealer obliged to provide me with the shelf, or pay all or part
>>of the cost of a replacement?
>Haggle with the breaker, look on Europarts
Actually, one of the first things I did was to call Euro Car Parts.
They do not stock parcel shelves.
I've found another breaker who has one on offer at £42 including
delivery and VAT, so I have done as much as I can to mitigate the
loss.
The question still stands, though, shouldn't the dealer pay for it?
--
Humbug
Peter Crosland
Oct 25, 2013, 3:40:02 PM10/25/13
to
On 25/10/2013 17:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:15:02 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> On Tuesday this week I bought a used car from a dealer, which I had
>> seen advertised on Auto Trader.
>>
>> As I was about to drive away, it saw that the parcel shelf wasn't in
>> place. Goodness knows how I managed to miss that before - it was only
>> when I put my bag in the boot that I noticed it. I went back into the
>> showroom, and a member of staff went ot look for it.
>>
>> She came back a few minutes later and said that they coudn't find it,
>> and that it probably had not been present in the car when they
>> acquired it.
>>
>> When I got home, I checked the photographs on the listing in Auto
>> Trader, and found that one of them did show the parcel shelf.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Is the dealer obliged to provide me with the shelf, or pay all or part
>> of the cost of a replacement?
>
> Yes. You are entitled to the car as illustrated in the photo. Since you
> drew attention to the missing shelf before you drove away, and were able to
> provide evidence that the car had it when advertised, I don't think the
> dealer has a leg to stand on.
Just out of interest has the OP not already agreed to buy the car as he
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:15:02 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> On Tuesday this week I bought a used car from a dealer, which I had
>> seen advertised on Auto Trader.
>>
>> As I was about to drive away, it saw that the parcel shelf wasn't in
>> place. Goodness knows how I managed to miss that before - it was only
>> when I put my bag in the boot that I noticed it. I went back into the
>> showroom, and a member of staff went ot look for it.
>>
>> She came back a few minutes later and said that they coudn't find it,
>> and that it probably had not been present in the car when they
>> acquired it.
>>
>> When I got home, I checked the photographs on the listing in Auto
>> Trader, and found that one of them did show the parcel shelf.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Is the dealer obliged to provide me with the shelf, or pay all or part
>> of the cost of a replacement?
>
> Yes. You are entitled to the car as illustrated in the photo. Since you
> drew attention to the missing shelf before you drove away, and were able to
> provide evidence that the car had it when advertised, I don't think the
> dealer has a leg to stand on.
had presumably inspected it and had a test drive? The fault must have
been obvious when he inspected it.
--
Peter Crosland
Percy Picacity
Oct 25, 2013, 4:10:02 PM10/25/13
to
In article <57ednbauoOX0WvfP...@brightview.co.uk>,
Given that they are often retracted, it is remarkably easy to miss the
absence of a parcel shelf, until you specifically want to use it to hide
things.
--
Percy Picacity
absence of a parcel shelf, until you specifically want to use it to hide
things.
--
Percy Picacity
Humbug
Oct 25, 2013, 4:25:02 PM10/25/13
to
when not in use.
--
Humbug
Humbug
Oct 25, 2013, 4:20:02 PM10/25/13
to
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:40:02 +0100, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Yes, this is an important part of my original question.
I had not noticed that the shelf was missing during the test drive; it
was only when I put my bag in the boot as I was about to drive away
that I saw that it was missing.
The shelf is designed to be removable, and the car had beeen cleaned
inside and out just prior to my test drive - in fact I remarked that
the seats were still damp as soon as I sat down in it.
My expectation was that when the young lady went to find the shelf,
she'd come back with it as it might well have been taken out during
the cleaning procedure.
She didn't find it. The dealer is trying to make out that they never
had it, but the photograph shows that they actually did.
--
Humbug
wrote:
I had not noticed that the shelf was missing during the test drive; it
was only when I put my bag in the boot as I was about to drive away
that I saw that it was missing.
The shelf is designed to be removable, and the car had beeen cleaned
inside and out just prior to my test drive - in fact I remarked that
the seats were still damp as soon as I sat down in it.
My expectation was that when the young lady went to find the shelf,
she'd come back with it as it might well have been taken out during
the cleaning procedure.
She didn't find it. The dealer is trying to make out that they never
had it, but the photograph shows that they actually did.
--
Humbug
Peter Crosland
Oct 25, 2013, 5:00:07 PM10/25/13
to
sensible solution that they should pay for.
--
Peter Crosland
Percy Picacity
Oct 25, 2013, 7:10:02 PM10/25/13
to
In article <5_GdnU5Mk70jRvfP...@brightview.co.uk>,
I'd recommend the OP to buy it and discuss with/sue the dealer later.
Any particular s/h example is likely to have been sold by the time they
agree to get it, and if they were willing they probably have their own
sources.
--
Percy Picacity
Any particular s/h example is likely to have been sold by the time they
agree to get it, and if they were willing they probably have their own
sources.
--
Percy Picacity
Mark Goodge
Oct 25, 2013, 7:25:01 PM10/25/13
to
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:40:02 +0100, Peter Crosland put finger to keyboard
He spotted the missing item prior to taking the car, and accepted it after
having been assured that the dealer would find the missing item. So I don't
think he can be deemed to have accepted it unconditionally in the state in
which he found it.
having been assured that the dealer would find the missing item. So I don't
think he can be deemed to have accepted it unconditionally in the state in
which he found it.
steve robinson
Oct 26, 2013, 4:35:02 AM10/26/13
to
any humbug could get second hand.
--
Humbug
Oct 26, 2013, 8:45:02 AM10/26/13
to
He said that it had not been present in the car when he acquired it.
The photographs in the advertisement show that it did actually have a
shelf when it was offered for sale.
--
Humbug
Roland Perry
Oct 26, 2013, 9:20:05 AM10/26/13
to
In message <71en69h8ld7qm8hao...@4ax.com>, at 13:45:02 on
Sat, 26 Oct 2013, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
It seems a shame that same shelf has gone AWOL in the mean time.
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 26 Oct 2013, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
>
>The dealer did not assure me that he would find the missing item.
>
>He said that it had not been present in the car when he acquired it.
>
>The photographs in the advertisement show that it did actually have a
>shelf when it was offered for sale.
So he found a shelf in order to make the care more saleable/photogenic.
>The dealer did not assure me that he would find the missing item.
>
>He said that it had not been present in the car when he acquired it.
>
>The photographs in the advertisement show that it did actually have a
>shelf when it was offered for sale.
It seems a shame that same shelf has gone AWOL in the mean time.
--
Roland Perry
Barry Salter
Oct 26, 2013, 10:55:02 AM10/26/13
to
On 26/10/2013 13:45, Humbug wrote:
> The photographs in the advertisement show that it did actually have a
> shelf when it was offered for sale.
Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, but can you be certain that the
> The photographs in the advertisement show that it did actually have a
> shelf when it was offered for sale.
photos in the advertisement are of the exact same vehicle, rather than
"stock" photos?
Cheers,
Barry
Humbug
Oct 26, 2013, 11:35:02 AM10/26/13
to
it is a distinctive colour. They're all of the same car.
--
Humbug
Doctor Dave
Oct 26, 2013, 1:10:02 PM10/26/13
to
John Briggs
Oct 26, 2013, 2:05:02 PM10/26/13
to
On 26/10/2013 18:10, Doctor Dave wrote:
> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:55:02 PM UTC+1, Barry Salter wrote:
>> On 26/10/2013 13:45, Humbug wrote:
>>
>>> The photographs in the advertisement show that it did actually have a
>>> shelf when it was offered for sale.
>>
>> Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, but can you be certain that the
>> photos in the advertisement are of the exact same vehicle, rather than
>> "stock" photos?
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:55:02 PM UTC+1, Barry Salter wrote:
>> On 26/10/2013 13:45, Humbug wrote:
>>
>>> The photographs in the advertisement show that it did actually have a
>>> shelf when it was offered for sale.
>>
>> Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, but can you be certain that the
>> photos in the advertisement are of the exact same vehicle, rather than
>> "stock" photos?
>
> I'm not sure that that would change things so much. If an advertisement showed a photograph of something, then the purchaser would be entitled that the product would be pretty much as shown in the photograph.
But the actual situation makes it impossible for the dealer to claim
(OK, I know they are doing - but this invalidates it) that the car was
offered for sale without the shelf (regardless of the legal relevance of
the claim.)
--
John Briggs
Peter Parry
Oct 26, 2013, 6:20:01 PM10/26/13
to
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:45:02 +0100, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>The dealer did not assure me that he would find the missing item.
>He said that it had not been present in the car when he acquired it.
Sale of Goods Act :-
>The dealer did not assure me that he would find the missing item.
>He said that it had not been present in the car when he acquired it.
S14(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there
is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of
satisfactory quality
S14(2C) The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to
any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory-
(b) where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made,
which that examination ought to reveal,
If you accepted the car minus the shelf, having noticed it was
missing, you don't seem to have much of a case to force the dealer to
buy one for you.
Humbug
Oct 27, 2013, 7:40:02 AM10/27/13
to
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 23:20:01 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
wrote:
I accepted the car minus the shelf after the dealer had told me that
the shelf was not present when he acquired it. Obviously he can't give
me an item which he never had.
I later discovered that the shelf *had* actually been present, and
must have been removed at some time between the car being advertised
for sale and the time I went to buy it.
The dealer's statement that he never had the shelf was untrue.
Had I known that for certain at the time, I would only have accepted
it without the shelf if I was given an assurance that it would be
provided later.
From what the secretary told me, it seems likely that the shelf was
misappropriated by a member of staff who is no longer with the company
...
I have now bought a replacement shelf from a breaker.
Since it seems very unlikely that the dealer will be prepared to pay
for it (whether he is obliged to or not), I shan't pursue it any
further.
It's disappointing that he lied about it to get rid of me, though :-(
--
Humbug
wrote:
the shelf was not present when he acquired it. Obviously he can't give
me an item which he never had.
I later discovered that the shelf *had* actually been present, and
must have been removed at some time between the car being advertised
for sale and the time I went to buy it.
The dealer's statement that he never had the shelf was untrue.
Had I known that for certain at the time, I would only have accepted
it without the shelf if I was given an assurance that it would be
provided later.
From what the secretary told me, it seems likely that the shelf was
misappropriated by a member of staff who is no longer with the company
...
I have now bought a replacement shelf from a breaker.
Since it seems very unlikely that the dealer will be prepared to pay
for it (whether he is obliged to or not), I shan't pursue it any
further.
It's disappointing that he lied about it to get rid of me, though :-(
--
Humbug
Peter Crosland
Oct 27, 2013, 8:25:02 AM10/27/13
to
the bad publicity would not be welcome to him. At least it is worth the
cost of a stamp etc.
--
Peter Crosland
Message has been deleted
Doctor Dave
Oct 27, 2013, 2:10:11 PM10/27/13
to
On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:10:05 PM UTC, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> Whether polite or not, such a threat allows/invites a pre-emptive action
> that may be expensive to defend.
Could you possibly expand on that please?
Many thanks.
> that may be expensive to defend.
Could you possibly expand on that please?
Many thanks.
Humbug
Oct 27, 2013, 3:15:02 PM10/27/13
to
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:10:05 +0000, "Anthony R. Gold"
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:25:02 +0000, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:25:02 +0000, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>Whether polite or not, such a threat allows/invites a pre-emptive action
>that may be expensive to defend.
Up until this morning, my intention was to contact the dealer telling
>that may be expensive to defend.
him that I have located a replacement, and invite him to pay for it.
If he refused, I would then send a letter before action, and follow it
up in the Small Claims Court if he still refused.
From what Peter Parry has said, it now looks quite possible that I
could lose the case if it came to the SCC :-(
I think that the best that I can do now is to send the evidence of the
photographs from the advertisement to the dealer, along with a copy of
the invoice for the replacement shelf, and appeal to his sense of
fairness.
We can live in hope, but since insists that he never had the original
shelf in the first place despite evidence to the contrary, I can't
imagine that fairness is his first priority.
--
Humbug
Message has been deleted
Humbug
Oct 27, 2013, 8:10:02 PM10/27/13
to
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 22:50:05 +0000, "Anthony R. Gold"
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>Indeed, and I also suggest you do not imply that anyone has lied to you.
>What happened can equally be explained by their lack of the information that
>you will now be providing. You are concerned with just that one car while
>the folks at the dealership will be dealing with many.
Yes, ideed, I thought several times before saying in a previous post
that the delaer had lied.
I didn't say that the former employee had stolen the shelf either,
although that appears to be what happened.
--
Humbug
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>What happened can equally be explained by their lack of the information that
>you will now be providing. You are concerned with just that one car while
>the folks at the dealership will be dealing with many.
Yes, ideed, I thought several times before saying in a previous post
that the delaer had lied.
I didn't say that the former employee had stolen the shelf either,
although that appears to be what happened.
--
Humbug
Peter Crosland
Oct 27, 2013, 9:00:02 PM10/27/13
to
ask them to have a quiet word.
--
Peter Crosland
Ian Jackson
Oct 27, 2013, 9:55:02 PM10/27/13
to
In article <mhfo6999ldqdn3nlm...@4ax.com>,
specifically, they are not as shown in the photo in the advert in Auto
Trader.
Also I would argue that the examination by the OP at the time of sale
was not, in the circumstances, one which "ought to reveal" the missing
parcel shelf. As the OP reports, the car had just been cleaned, so
thhe OP could easily have assumed that the parcel shelf had been
removed temporarily to make the cleaning easier.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:45:02 +0100, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>>The dealer did not assure me that he would find the missing item.
>
>>He said that it had not been present in the car when he acquired it.
>
>Sale of Goods Act :-
>
>S14(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there
>is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of
>satisfactory quality
>
>S14(2C) The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to
>any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory-
>(b) where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made,
>which that examination ought to reveal,
This doesn't help the dealer because the goods are not as described -
>On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:45:02 +0100, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>>The dealer did not assure me that he would find the missing item.
>
>>He said that it had not been present in the car when he acquired it.
>
>Sale of Goods Act :-
>
>S14(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there
>is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of
>satisfactory quality
>
>S14(2C) The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to
>any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory-
>(b) where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made,
>which that examination ought to reveal,
specifically, they are not as shown in the photo in the advert in Auto
Trader.
Also I would argue that the examination by the OP at the time of sale
was not, in the circumstances, one which "ought to reveal" the missing
parcel shelf. As the OP reports, the car had just been cleaned, so
thhe OP could easily have assumed that the parcel shelf had been
removed temporarily to make the cleaning easier.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Ian Jackson
Oct 27, 2013, 10:00:02 PM10/27/13
to
In article <5tsp69p87a3jjl2gs...@4ax.com>,
>It's disappointing that he lied about it to get rid of me, though :-(
Your point about the lies may well influence your attitude, but you
shouldn't make it in your legal submissions. It's a distraction.
You should rely on the photo showing the shelf as present.
Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>I have now bought a replacement shelf from a breaker.
>Since it seems very unlikely that the dealer will be prepared to pay
>for it (whether he is obliged to or not), I shan't pursue it any
>further.
I think you should (threaten to and) sue the dealer.
>I have now bought a replacement shelf from a breaker.
>Since it seems very unlikely that the dealer will be prepared to pay
>for it (whether he is obliged to or not), I shan't pursue it any
>further.
>It's disappointing that he lied about it to get rid of me, though :-(
shouldn't make it in your legal submissions. It's a distraction.
You should rely on the photo showing the shelf as present.
Ian Jackson
Oct 27, 2013, 10:10:06 PM10/27/13
to
In article <annq69913eafafq6d...@4ax.com>,
>From what Peter Parry has said, it now looks quite possible that I
>could lose the case if it came to the SCC :-(
Given what you've said, there is a very small chance of you losing
this case if it goes to a hearing. I agree with those who say the
dealer doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Certainly it's a risk worth taking.
>On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:10:05 +0000, "Anthony R. Gold"
><not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:25:02 +0000, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>wrote:
for L42 does not put the OP at any signficant risk of having to pay
costs. Even actually issuing proceedings has a limited risk of costs,
unless the OP does something grossly unreasonable or incompetent,
which seems unlikely give their coherent and reasonable messages here
so far. And it seems very unlikely to me that the OP's case would go
to a hearing anyway.
(I am not a laywer but I have lost track of how many times I have sued
people in situations with a similarly strong case to that described by
the OP. My opponents - most recently, Dell - have always settled for
the whole value of my claim.)
To the OP: if you actually sue, you should add to your claim Fixed
Commencement Costs at 1/3 rate as applicable to Litigants in Person,
according to CPR 2.14(2)(a)(i), CPR 45(2)(1)(a) Table 1 and CPR
46.5(2),(3).
That is, look up the value of the claim in Table 1 here
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part45-fixed-costs#rule45.2
and multiply the amount by 2/3. So L33.33 in your case.
This goes into the "solicitors costs" box on the front of the claim
form. Put the references to the CPR, as I quote above, next to it.
You will get to keep the L33.33, so when your opponents settle (as
they will) it will cost them ~L70 more than the L42 you will be asking
for in your letter before action, of which L33.33 is the fixed
commencement costs which you can keep and the rest will be the court
fee.
And of course don't forget to charge for the delivery charge of the
replacement parcel shelf (or your petrol for fetching it).
Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>Up until this morning, my intention was to contact the dealer telling
>him that I have located a replacement, and invite him to pay for it.
>
>If he refused, I would then send a letter before action, and follow it
>up in the Small Claims Court if he still refused.
This is what you should do.
>Up until this morning, my intention was to contact the dealer telling
>him that I have located a replacement, and invite him to pay for it.
>
>If he refused, I would then send a letter before action, and follow it
>up in the Small Claims Court if he still refused.
>From what Peter Parry has said, it now looks quite possible that I
>could lose the case if it came to the SCC :-(
this case if it goes to a hearing. I agree with those who say the
dealer doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Certainly it's a risk worth taking.
>On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:10:05 +0000, "Anthony R. Gold"
><not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:25:02 +0000, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>> A polite written threat of legal action might concentrate his mind as
>>> the bad publicity would not be welcome to him. At least it is worth the
>>> cost of a stamp etc.
>>
>>Whether polite or not, such a threat allows/invites a pre-emptive action
>>that may be expensive to defend.
I think this is pure FUD. A simple letter before legal action asking
>>> the bad publicity would not be welcome to him. At least it is worth the
>>> cost of a stamp etc.
>>
>>Whether polite or not, such a threat allows/invites a pre-emptive action
>>that may be expensive to defend.
for L42 does not put the OP at any signficant risk of having to pay
costs. Even actually issuing proceedings has a limited risk of costs,
unless the OP does something grossly unreasonable or incompetent,
which seems unlikely give their coherent and reasonable messages here
so far. And it seems very unlikely to me that the OP's case would go
to a hearing anyway.
(I am not a laywer but I have lost track of how many times I have sued
people in situations with a similarly strong case to that described by
the OP. My opponents - most recently, Dell - have always settled for
the whole value of my claim.)
To the OP: if you actually sue, you should add to your claim Fixed
Commencement Costs at 1/3 rate as applicable to Litigants in Person,
according to CPR 2.14(2)(a)(i), CPR 45(2)(1)(a) Table 1 and CPR
46.5(2),(3).
That is, look up the value of the claim in Table 1 here
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part45-fixed-costs#rule45.2
and multiply the amount by 2/3. So L33.33 in your case.
This goes into the "solicitors costs" box on the front of the claim
form. Put the references to the CPR, as I quote above, next to it.
You will get to keep the L33.33, so when your opponents settle (as
they will) it will cost them ~L70 more than the L42 you will be asking
for in your letter before action, of which L33.33 is the fixed
commencement costs which you can keep and the rest will be the court
fee.
And of course don't forget to charge for the delivery charge of the
replacement parcel shelf (or your petrol for fetching it).
John Briggs
Oct 28, 2013, 2:20:02 PM10/28/13
to
On 28/10/2013 01:55, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <mhfo6999ldqdn3nlm...@4ax.com>,
> Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:45:02 +0100, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>>> The dealer did not assure me that he would find the missing item.
>>
>>> He said that it had not been present in the car when he acquired it.
>>
>> Sale of Goods Act :-
>>
>> S14(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there
>> is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of
>> satisfactory quality
>>
>> S14(2C) The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to
>> any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory-
>> (b) where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made,
>> which that examination ought to reveal,
>
> This doesn't help the dealer because the goods are not as described -
> specifically, they are not as shown in the photo in the advert in Auto
> Trader.
>
> Also I would argue that the examination by the OP at the time of sale
> was not, in the circumstances, one which "ought to reveal" the missing
> parcel shelf. As the OP reports, the car had just been cleaned, so
> thhe OP could easily have assumed that the parcel shelf had been
> removed temporarily to make the cleaning easier.
Which is almost certainly what had actually happened.
> In article <mhfo6999ldqdn3nlm...@4ax.com>,
> Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:45:02 +0100, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>>> The dealer did not assure me that he would find the missing item.
>>
>>> He said that it had not been present in the car when he acquired it.
>>
>> Sale of Goods Act :-
>>
>> S14(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there
>> is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of
>> satisfactory quality
>>
>> S14(2C) The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to
>> any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory-
>> (b) where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made,
>> which that examination ought to reveal,
>
> This doesn't help the dealer because the goods are not as described -
> specifically, they are not as shown in the photo in the advert in Auto
> Trader.
>
> Also I would argue that the examination by the OP at the time of sale
> was not, in the circumstances, one which "ought to reveal" the missing
> parcel shelf. As the OP reports, the car had just been cleaned, so
> thhe OP could easily have assumed that the parcel shelf had been
> removed temporarily to make the cleaning easier.
--
John Briggs
0 new messages