It's me 615 Posted November 29, 2016 just in case lawegistics havent mentioned it write everything down on hard paper with dates and times its a long way to court time and easy to forget things or lose things oh and dont let the b*stds grind you down because this is what these people play on and hope you dont turn up on the day if the lba turns to a court claim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve92 80 Posted November 29, 2016 Does the customer have a hearing loss ? We used to get through a number of clutches in pool cars because the drivers were deaf, they couldn't feel the clutch bite and slip the clutch too much turning it blue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TS car sales ltd 0 Posted December 7, 2016 Update, Here is what lawgistics will write to him. We are instructed by our client to write to you in response to your request that our client reimburse you £945.00 for work you had carried out on a vehicle purchased from on October 17th 2016. You contacted our client on November 12th to advise that the clutch was slipping and that you had had a quote for £475 to repair this. Our client declined to cover the cost of your quote for the repair. The clutch is a wear and tear item and it is not accepted that wear to the clutch invokes our client’s obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to provide a refund or a repair. Furthermore, the clutch was replaced by the previous owner of the car in December 2014 at 112,408 miles, so our client was of the view that the diagnosis you provided was perhaps not accurate. In light of this, our client offered to inspect the car but you declined to make the car available to our client as you said the distance involved was too far, thus our client’s goodwill offer to assist was turned down. You have since authorised work to be carried out on your car by a third party mechanic and have forwarded our client the bill for £945.00 which you expect him to reimburse, along with an email informing him that the DPF has been replaced and that you wish to be reimbursed for this as well. Therefore, having not secured agreement with our client to reimburse you the initial £475, you authorised further work to be carried out and are requesting reimbursement after the event. Our client did not agree to cover these costs at a third party mechanic and has no liability to replace wear and tear items on your car in any event. It is not reasonable to expect our client to cover the cost of work without prior express authorisation and you were aware you did not have this when you authorised the repairs to your car. In addition to the lack of prior authorisation that our client would reimburse the amount of £945.00, it is not accepted that the right to a repair under the Consumer Rights Act has arisen in this instance in any event, as there is no diagnostic evidence that the car has a serious fault, besides some wear and tear potentially. The car is eight years of age with an odometer reading of 129,000 miles at the point of sale. The purchase price was £4795.00 and its condition is commensurate with this age and mileage. It is established as a matter of caselaw that on the sale of a second hand car it is merchantable if it is in a useable condition, even if it is not perfect. It seems you expect our client to pay towards bringing the car into as near perfect condition as possible, by a mechanic of your choice and this expectation is unreasonable and beyond the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. There was no fault with the car at the point of purchase, which passed an MOT on September 7th 2016 and, it is noted, has passed its previous MOT’s with very few advisory items. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mikey 19 Posted December 7, 2016 Sounds good! I'm assuming there is another paragraph to add to the end politely telling the customer to go forth and multiply!? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TS car sales ltd 0 Posted December 8, 2016 nope that is it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mikey 19 Posted December 8, 2016 Ok well joking apart, that just seems an odd way to end the letter without summing up your position and clarifying no payment will be forthcoming? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metcars 397 Posted December 8, 2016 3 hours ago, Mikey said: Ok well joking apart, that just seems an odd way to end the letter without summing up your position and clarifying no payment will be forthcoming? Yes, I agree. There's no conclusion? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metcars 397 Posted December 9, 2016 It's not what I was expecting. Assuming that it's not been 'edited' by OP. In my experience of dealing with the legal profession, letter writing is an art. They are usually 'anal' about detail, I think it's module 101 when studying for a law degree. If I represented lawgistics I would be concerned that a letter like this was being shown as an example of the standard of my work? Just my opinion... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mikey 19 Posted December 9, 2016 10 hours ago, metcars said: It's not what I was expecting. Assuming that it's not been 'edited' by OP. In my experience of dealing with the legal profession, letter writing is an art. They are usually 'anal' about detail, I think it's module 101 when studying for a law degree. If I represented lawgistics I would be concerned that a letter like this was being shown as an example of the standard of my work? Just my opinion... Yes completely agree with all of the above and well put too! I wonder if the office ''trainee'' wrote it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's me 615 Posted December 9, 2016 ive been advised not to comment so im not going to suffice to say ...........mm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
