It Official!

[robertjrt]

But doesn't this sort of action from an individual help us all out and sets a precedence for all to see?

This is one of the reasons I have carried on for so long.

Litigation does not frighten me one iota!

I have always been an awkward S**, just ask my mother and for a professional opinion a psychiatrist. I have met a few psychiatrist, one of whom diagnosed my illness and several more who I enjoyed a verbal sparring with whist detained in hospital.The consensus of opinion is that I do suffer from a personality defect which manifests itself when I am dealing with people who think I can be lied too.

If Mercedes-Benz think they are above the law, wrong, and I shall show them how wrong they are, I have a Plan C just waiting for the right moment.

I used to love going to meetings when I was an elected Councilor just to hear the latest hair brained scheme the Officers had brought before the committee, it was the same when I was Chairman of an Association and went to meetings dealing with aspects of the Environmental Protection Act.

You would not believe what has been proposed and, worse, has been implements, but if your bin is rotting outside your home in this heat you should have a fair idea!

I have spent a lifetime being involved with local politics and animal welfare and now I have Mercedes-Benz and others to keep me busy, its what I do and I enjoy doing it, perverse maybe, but it suits me.

I have been asked to Chair a group of property investors who have lost substantial funds, millions, in Spain, so, I shall be dealing with the Spanish government soon

 

[G.O'Rilla]

Well as your study of law goes deeper, I am sure you will find there are many cases where one persons view of events is very different from the other persons. And that in many cases finding proof of who did exactly what is not either easy or sometimes even possible.

Sometimes it pays to move on rather than waste a whole chunk of one's life immersed in the bitterness and anger of a prolonged dispute -whoever was the more in the right.

I was always told that you can win the battle but lose the war......

A barrister friend of mine loves it when he gets a minor marine case that goes all the way - two yacht owners in a collision arguing over whether it was 70% to blame or 90% to blame. Easy money in the bank for the lawyers who are the only winners.

I've read the threads and had considerable sympathy, but now (my opinion only), I'm bored.

 

[Speedmaster]

I can understand the frustration but I am not quite sure on the argument for getting the value of the car back? What is your basis for this?

Sadly actions are taking so long to get to court now that is puts people off with genuine cases to answer. The civil courts system is jammed with silly argumnents and it is becoming a real problem. Any sort of justice is subject to quite a time delay. And that is speaking as a solicitor. But I should not moan as it keeps my V8's in petrol

 

[PanzerMcGrory]

I was always told that you can win the battle but lose the war......

A barrister friend of mine loves it when he gets a minor marine case that goes all the way - two yacht owners in a collision arguing over whether it was 70% to blame or 90% to blame. Easy money in the bank for the lawyers who are the only winners.

I've read the threads and had considerable sympathy, but now (my opinion only), I'm bored.

You could always through yourself off a cliff for some real excitement

 

[G.O'Rilla]

Good suggestion - apparently the flying bit is quite a sensation, but the landing is a bit painful

 

[*Thumper]

The ramblings are only one side of the story ...........OK so we know MB won't come on the forum, and give the other side ........... so really the threads have run themselves out !!

 

[Rory]

The ramblings are only one side of the story ...........OK so we know MB won't come on the forum, and give the other side

That's normally true in these kind of stories, but this is different as the original case has been before a court which heard both sides of the story and Mercedes got spanked.

 

[hawk20]

But doesn't this sort of action from an individual help us all out and sets a precedence for all to see?

If you assume all right is on his side and all wrong is on the other side, then yes. But just suppose for a moment that it may not be?

 

[Xtractorfan]

I did read of a case a few months ago where MBUK were taken to court over a botched pick up ..car was jump started wrongly.. and the court ruled that the MB garage were responsible...as they had actioned the recovery company.. I wonder was that your case Robert.. Im behind you 100%..even if you are slightly nuts..Haha.. as bitch has said we need people like you to lead the way.. and we all benefit..

Big companies or even dealerships dont have anyone who will have to take the fall if they lose, but lots of people getting together and egging each other on, so I think it is time for the courts to stipulate someone who will be responsible for ensuring that judgements are fully carried through, otherwise that peron will end up in jail..

 

[hawk20]

That's normally true in these kind of stories, but this is different as the original case has been before a court which heard both sides of the story and Mercedes got spanked.

It was totally impossible for the court to judge beyond reasonable doubt whether the car had been jump started with reverse polarity by: -
a) the owner
b) the dealer
or c) Mondial the breakdown company.

You (and possibly the judge) have a perfect right to believe that owners never tell fibs about what they accidentally did to their cars, or believe that dealers employees never tell fibs, or recovery staff never tell fibs, but in truth we all know the truth is often a bit elusive in cases like this.

 

[robertjrt]

I did read of a case a few months ago where MBUK were taken to court over a botched pick up ..car was jump started wrongly.. and the court ruled that the MB garage were responsible...as they had actioned the recovery company.. I wonder was that your case Robert.. Im behind you 100%..even if you are slightly nuts..Haha.. as bitch has said we need people like you to lead the way.. and we all benefit..

Big companies or even dealerships dont have anyone who will have to take the fall if they lose, but lots of people getting together and egging each other on, so I think it is time for the courts to stipulate someone who will be responsible for ensuring that judgements are fully carried through, otherwise that peron will end up in jail..

Yes, thats me

And yes, I am eccentric, I admit it.


Your " but, lots of people getting together and egging each other on" is also known as Conspiricy to Defraud, and I am almost there

 

[robertjrt]

It was totally impossible for the court to judge beyond reasonable doubt whether the car had been jump started with reverse polarity by: -
a) the owner
b) the dealer
or c) Mondial the breakdown company.

You (and possibly the judge) have a perfect right to believe that owners never tell fibs about what they accidentally did to their cars, or believe that dealers employees never tell fibs, or recovery staff never tell fibs, but in truth we all know the truth is often a bit elusive in cases like this.

My case was helped by a MB Manager committing Perjury in the witness box, the sworn evidence from the Recovery Companies Manager in the witness box and copies of Mercedes-Benz's own work sheets convenently signed and dated. The Court Ordered Expert's report was just the icing on the cake.

 

[robertjrt]

I can understand the frustration but I am not quite sure on the argument for getting the value of the car back? What is your basis for this?


Sadly actions are taking so long to get to court now that is puts people off with genuine cases to answer. The civil courts system is jammed with silly argumnents and it is becoming a real problem. Any sort of justice is subject to quite a time delay. And that is speaking as a solicitor. But I should not moan as it keeps my V8's in petrol

My Argument will need to wait a little longer for events elsewhere to be resolved.

The choice of Bow County Court was perhaps not the best Court to apply too
as it would seem to be the Court of choice for local Authorities to Issue Possession Orders etc., as well as finance Companies seeking CCJ's, which resulted it long delays exacerbated by MB delaying tactics. Trying to find a "whole" day took months and then when the day did arrive, the trial was moved to another Court!

I am looking forward to my next module for my Diploma in Law at Birkbeck this September.

 

[muller1]

Fight with Merc

I hope you get to the bottom of this and get a good result.
Too often the Big Guys seem to think that "Might Is Right" and hope to scare you off with the posturing etc.
Cast your minds back to Battle of Trafalgar, Jutland, the 1914-18 conflict, the 1939-45, etc etc etc.
Where would we all be if our pre-decessors had just said, oh-well they are bigger so they must be right we will surrender rather than fight.
My take on it is is right is right and must be upheld and fought for with a vengance and upheld at all costs.
All you have is your word and honour, nothing else. Money means nothing if you are a low life lying toe rag. (Mugabee and Brown)
If anything is worth having, it is worth fighting for.
Peace, the Falklands, freedom of speach to name just a few.
I wish you all the best of luck and hope you get a good result.
Regards.

Mike

 

[Rory]

It was totally impossible for the court to judge beyond reasonable doubt whether the car had been jump started with reverse polarity by: -
a) the owner
b) the dealer
or c) Mondial the breakdown company.

What, you mean apart from the fact that the car was **driven** by the recovery driver to his truck?

You (and possibly the judge) have a perfect right to believe that owners never tell fibs about what they accidentally did to their cars, or believe that dealers employees never tell fibs, or recovery staff never tell fibs, but in truth we all know the truth is often a bit elusive in cases like this.

It didn't elude the Judge. Stop trying to cast doubt on the case - we're past that point and you're making yourself look ridiculous by constantly querying it.

 

[hawk20]

What, you mean apart from the fact that the car was **driven** by the recovery driver to his truck?

It didn't elude the Judge. Stop trying to cast doubt on the case - we're past that point and you're making yourself look ridiculous by constantly querying it.

This is what Television said in an earlier posting. Doesn't sound quite as cut and dried as you suggest. (But then cases that go on for 4 years rarely are).
"From the years in working in electronics I would have said that the first man on the scene should have picked up immediately if the car had been reverse jump started. He would have seen by the instruments on the car and the current drawn by his starting device. This man was used I assume, to doing this call out type of work work, or was he a new to doing this. If the man was used to doing the jump starting he would have pointed out the oddities that he found and should have pointed them out when taking the car in. Do these people have a job sheet to fill in ?.
If he made a mistake, and people do, then was the car just taken into the workshop.

I do know that if this had been me, and I have been in similar situations, I would have told the customer of my findings and and got further help before doing anything.

The last time that this happened to me was with a brand new Sky box some years back that I installed and the man complained that it just went dead, it was found by Pace the maker that water had got into the box and a repair was refused. I was threatened with a law suit, but Pace stood be their findings, and it all went away, the plant food was the give away in the water. Many other times I have refused to touch a job as one senses that something is not right.

In this case MB should have done more at the early stage and reported back. One could also sum up the customer, and reason is, or was he capable of trying to jump start the car or not, in this case I do not think that he was able to do this, for a start the car was under a guarantee, just because the car did not start it did not mean that jump starting would help, there are so many reasons as to why a car will not start"

I have absolutely no idea of the rights and wrongs of the case, or of what actually happened; what I am trying to say to Robert is that after four long years of this, to me, it seems not a very joyful way to spend one's remaining time here, in endless litigation. I've seen others do it and rarely if ever does it appear to be a road to happiness. Even if you win a few grand more in compensation, will you look back and say, God I wasted four (or more) years of my life on that. And there were so many more enjoyable things I could have done instead.

 

[Rory]

hawk20 - you are Judge Judy and I Claim My Five Pounds.


In the above case the Sky box was dead. In the OP's case the car was capable of being driven until it got the dealership.

 

[hawk20]

hawk20 - you are Judge Judy and I Claim My Five Pounds.


In the above case the Sky box was dead. In the OP's case the car was capable of being driven until it got the dealership.

So read the earlier part of what Television said. I'm sorry: I've never heard of Judge Judy.

 

[hawk20]

Ah Rory, you always seem to enjoy attacking whatever I post and seem to relish any opportunities to have a dig at MB and its dealers.

Let’s try and set that aside for just a few seconds.

There are two strands here. I am not a techie in any sense and am not trying to argue the technical merits of one case from another, merely noting that sufficient doubt has to have existed for much of the time for the case to have taken four years of litigation.

I have no certainty of who is right and wrong but have tried to persuade Robert about the worthwhileness of going on.

You, by contrast seem to be certain and clearly on one side. And, of course, you may be right. But your certainty comes from a belief about technical facts about which I have very limited knowledge. Let’s try to get to the bottom of these. Genuinely.

TV seems to be saying (to a non techie like me) that the recovery man should have been able to detect signs that the owner had tried to jump start the car with reverse polarity and done harm by doing so. ( I have never made this mistake, yet, and do not know the full effects). He seems to imply that the recovery man could have started the car, nonetheless, (or am I wrong about that) but should have seen plenty of symptoms which he should have reported. Is that a fair summary of what TV says?

You, by contrast seem to believe that if the owner had tried to jump start with reverse polarity it would have been impossible for the car to have been started ‘and driven to the recovery vehicle’.

Are you right or is TV right? (if my interpretation of him is right!)

If you are right, then of course that proves the owner could not be at fault, provided that there is also proof that the car was started by Mondial and was driven to the recovery truck.

I would love to know. Note however it is not the who is right argument that has been my main concern but the other strand of thought on whether it is worthwhile for Robert to proceed after so long a time.

 

[robertjrt]

I do enjoy reading everybody's posts, I find it intellectually stimulating on how different readers interpret what has been written and the comment posted.

To recap, my car had failed to start on three consecutive occasions despite a two week visit to MB's workshop between the second and third time.

Once my sister had informed me that the recovery operator had driven my car away it became the responsibility of Mercedes-Benz and MB had a "Duty of Care" too me.

The "recovery sheet" did not indicate any untoward problems with my car and the only marks shown were a scratch on the front valance and marks on the alloys.

When MB informed that my car was ready for collection the following year and asked me how I was intending to pay the Invoice of £6,800 was the first that I had heard that there was a serious problem with my car and I was expected to pay.

When I asked why I was not informed that I was to be expected to pay for the repair, the reply was a classic, we needed to do the work to clear the car from the workshop, but, why did you not 'phone me to tell me of the damage and I was expected to pay for it? Silence.

As far as spending all this time and money, the only reward I had from spending time and money rescuing hedgehogs was a personal satisfaction, ditto, my Councilor work, and having a house full of cats for the RSPCA while they had their kittens, so, the garage was full of hedgehogs, the house full of kittens running amok.

In some respects this legal action against Mercedes-Benz has been quite simple compared to other disputes I have been involved in, Mercedes-Benz supplied all the evidence I needed themselves.

I do believe that the Manager at MB thought he would be able to "bully" me into paying the Invoice, silly man, he had no idea who he was dealing with but, it raises the question; how many times has it worked?

I laid the trap and he walked right into it