Hi All, here is the lastest from this saga and was wondering what you all thought of it.

Finally went to a solicitor (they are not cheap at £150 per hour), and have had a response back today.

The supermarket, who I have no problems in naming now that it has gone this far (THE CARPEOPLE in Sheffiled) have offered me my money back' less £300 per month usage charge. In otherwords thay will pay me back £15900-1500, which is £14400 pounds upon the vehicle being inspected by their representative.

Obviously, out of that money, I will have to pay for the solicitors letter and phone calls.

Your thoughts please...........

G

If your forking out £150 p/hour for a lawyer why ask us our opinions, surely they will tell you what the best is you can expect.

That doesn't sound too different (without going back through all your previous posts) from the offer they had made you directly in the first place. You don't seem to be any further forward.

I will repeat my initial advice; 1. New CR engined car or 2. big fat compensation payment.

No, before they where offering him his old car back + the money he paid on top less 300 a month

I would also consider, in your desicion a) ongoing legal costs, if the seller is found reasonable in their demands for £300 useage costs then you are racking the bill up. (and for a new car £300 p/m is a bargain considering the rental is only short term, you would have lost that in VAT/ depreciation driving off the forecourt.

I would be tempted to tell them you will accept £1k to walk away with no further liability in any way to them, and see what they say.

Edited 31 March, 200917 yr by postmanpat

I've got to agree with the replies already posted - what are your legal advisors proposing? What was in the letter they wrote to The Car People and how does their response differ to this??

Steve

Speak to your lawyer who will be able to advise. If they don't know they will be able to get an advice from a barrister who will know the case law.

Then base your choice on their advice.

We have an idea on the matter, however the people you are paying are:

a) Experts on the law

Legally liable if they give bad advice which leads to you being left out of pocket etc.

Your solicitor is an expert on the law and you should follow that advice. For the hassle I'd ask the garage for the £250 and the solicitors costs and walk away with a nice car, unless you can find a deal that puts you in the same position.

I would suggest time is of the essence though. You need to decide what you want to do.

You will see the attached talks about rejection and damages.

Note the section

Rejection of Goods

Buyers can reject the goods and require their money back provided they complain within "a reasonable time" (usually a short period).

The Sale of Goods Act does not define what amounts to a "reasonable time" but buyers have to be given a reasonable time to examine the goods to see if they were satisfactory. Ultimately, the matter can only be decided by a court after taking into account all the circumstances. An important factor might be that the buyer was not in a position to check the goods for a longer time after the sale than usual, because, for example, he was admitted to hospital immediately after he purchased them. Where a buyer is entitled to reject the goods, he must tell the retailer immediately. He is not obliged to send them back but must make them available for collection. However, most buyers would return goods they had themselves taken away to assist them convince the retailer their claim was legitimate and so speed things up. Where the buyer is not a consumer and the problem is a slight one (e.g. there is only a minor defect) then the goods cannot be rejected although compensation can be claimed (see below).

Claim for Compensation

Buyers can instead claim compensation known as "damages", if they are not entitled to reject the goods, or if they choose not to request this.

Compensation by way of damages is designed to compensate for actual losses and so normally amounts to the cost of repair or replacement (with goods of a similar age). Any direct and predictable expense arising as a result of being supplied with faulty goods can also be claimed by the customer (see "Consequential Loss" on page 16). This could include the cost of returning the goods, for example. In some instances the customer could get the defect remedied by someone else and claim the cost from the retailer as compensation for breach of contract. However, this is not advised as it might make it difficult to prove the problem dated from the time of the sale."

Basically you should not be out of pocket to get to the position of fulfilling the contract. They can take their £300 p/m and shove it. What they are trying to do is make sure they are not out of pocket, which is of course absurd. They should try to source you a well specced x month old vehicle to replace what you have in the spec you want, therefore you will be in the position you should have been in.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

The court would try to put you back in the same position as the day you purchased your new car. Clearly that is not physically possible as you have used your new car and the garage probably has got rid of your old car.

You have had the usage of your new car and the garage has also had the use of your part exchange. If the garage has sold your car it is not possible to have it back.

Where do you go from here -

1. I would contact Consumer Direct, seek advice and go to their web site.

2. Go somewhere such as Parkers guide and work out the depreciation of your old car. If the garage still has your old car, a court would probably expect you to accept it back, Your cash refund would still be based on the depreciation of your old car offsetting that of your new car, your reasonable expenses so far and the fact they are in breach.

3. Do the same for your new car, deduct one from the other, use the figures to judge if there really is a £300 difference per month.

4. The garage are in breach of contract so their losses are down to their own incompetence

5. The court would decide on what is reasonable, certainly if you informed the garage some time ago, it should limit their claim against you for usage.

6. Decide if you are able to give the car back now to limit their claim against you (not without risk as garage could go bust before settlement is agreed)

7. If they have sold your car, the claim is now racking up against them. Did they make a profit on your car?

8. I would think that they would be keen to settle in a reasonable way assuming they are solvent

9. Another option is ask the garage to source the correct car

10. Keep the car and agree a compensation payment based the difference between the PD and CR's value. Take garage to small claims court for compensation

11. The garage will have a claim against their supplier, ask garage to pursue their supplier, perhaps they would help the garage out of their problem

It depends on whether you like your PD and whether you are able to go without your new car if you give it back. The PD is still a good engine; I drive the CR 170 it is smooth and quiet, some people prefer the PD for its up front power. Good luck, so many options:confused:

Is it not as simple as valuing your car now as a PD

Valuing the CR with the same spec and mileage

Use independent valuations obviously

Take one from the other, and sue them for the difference...

I'm not sure if the some of the more recent posters have read the whole thread, but the OP has a lawyer engaged for the matter and is taking legal advice.

Yup, your lawyers view on their answer is key.

Has there been any resolution to this?

Any more news?

Did the OP get anywhere with this?