Refusal of a refund for £3,100

[curly]

I doubt very much that the Police would have any interest in this. A couple of thoughts how soon did the EML light come on after you took delivery? Did you check the MOT history of the car before purchase? I find it hard to believe that the condition of the engine mount deteriorated so much between MOTs.

I would agree, I had a motorbike stolen from me last year, all be it by a family member, I lent him the motorbike and he refuses to return it, I spoke with the police who said, “it looks like you have just lost your motorbike” they were just not interested.

The EML came on from the first time I drove it and it never went out.

Yes I did check the MOT history and all looked good, PN61 NKA
https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/

The seller said:
“The engine mount insert is not part of the MOT” so he clearly knew about it.

But surely the safety of a vehicle goes beyond that and perhaps should be included at some future date.

 

[curious]

The seller said:
“The engine mount insert is not part of the MOT” so he clearly knew about it.

Consumer Rights Act 2015. You can reject within the first 30 days for a full refund for any fault (unless declared by the vendor beforehand/at point of purchase).

 

[Kev555]

Thats not technically an engine mount more like a torque damper(sorry cant remember the correct name for it) but that doesn't excuse the raw deal you got from this chancer. Any decent seller would have replaced this once spotted as it would clunk like a train on the tracks whilst driving. Same with the engine check light, looked as if it was reset just to get it out of the yard.

 

[EmilysDad]

Thats not technically an engine mount more ....

Kane reckons it is https://www.evilution.co.uk/mod/451-engine-mount-repair.htm?highlight="engine mounts"

 

[peterws1957]

surely the safety of a vehicle goes beyond that and perhaps should be included at some future date.

I agree and am surprised that it's not included in the MOT. Annoying that you've fallen foul of an uncooperative dealer, but I've seen much worse stuff being sold, including by MB dealers. Hope you get your money back soon.

 

[s5tuart]

First course of action is credit card company.
Second course of action is Small Claims Court.
Don't waste your time with the cretin unless you want to send him the documents (keep a copy) by registered post to see what happens.
Don't waste much more time on it though.
Get it into the court and get witness statements and garage reports

 

[Wighty]

I would agree, I had a motorbike stolen from me last year, all be it by a family member, I lent him the motorbike and he refuses to return it, I spoke with the police who said, “it looks like you have just lost your motorbike” they were just not interested.

The EML came on from the first time I drove it and it never went out.

Yes I did check the MOT history and all looked good, PN61 NKA
https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/

The seller said:
“The engine mount insert is not part of the MOT” so he clearly knew about it.

But surely the safety of a vehicle goes beyond that and perhaps should be included at some future date.

Lending a family member the bike makes it a civil dispute , nothing to do with the police as it’s not a crime , they should have told you that .

 

[curly]

Lending a family member the bike makes it a civil dispute , nothing to do with the police as it’s not a crime , they should have told you that .

I looked up the definition of the word theft in law, it states: A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

It doesn't say 'but excludes family members, as such theft is dealt with by the police, the police officer I reported it to did not dismiss my report by saying it was civil, however I am not about to pursue this theft now, my following post will explain.

 

[curly]

First course of action is credit card company.
Second course of action is Small Claims Court.
Don't waste your time with the cretin unless you want to send him the documents (keep a copy) by registered post to see what happens.
Don't waste much more time on it though.
Get it into the court and get witness statements and garage reports

When I first asked him to collect the car and give me a refund I also said:
“and that will be an end to it”
but he has chosen this route, I don’t understand what he is trying to do, surely he doesn’t think that he can keep both!

I believe he wants the ‘paperwork’ so that in some way in his mind he can cover up the un-roadworthy car and the fraudulent MOT on it, however if I did send it back do you really believe that he would suddenly refund me?, is he really that dim that he would think that I would not keep my own copies.

I have no faith in our justice system, so I stay well away from it, in addition to my motorbike being stolen as above with no recourse, in 2003 I paid £12,800 for a new Volvo Penta engine with a two year warranty for my boat at a main dealers at Salcombe. Within 2 months it had become apparent that there was a fault with it being fitted as the engine and outdrive was just fizzing away in the river, the merchant refused to rectify it and so did Volvo Penta, subsequently I took legal action, it took 3 years, endless expense and independent marine surveys that came to in excess of £5,000, the final Court finding was against my claim of the cost of repair, I had to pay the dealer £3,000 for his solicitors fees and loss of earnings and a further £3,000 for the marine surveys, and repair my boat at my own expense, the Court said that they would send me the bills for payment, but as it never arrived I was charged another £600 for the bailiff to collect the money at my home.

So I ended up with a £12.800 Volvo Penta engine and an £11,600 legal bill, making it a £24,400 anode in my boat.

So I will let it take its course with the car refund and leave it in the hands of the Credit card company, DVLA, DVSA, Citizens Advice and Trading Standards and see if they can bring some sanity to it and my refund.

So my philosophy now is, to stay away from any litigation because there is nothing certain or fair about a Court hearing in my experiences and opinion.

 

[Timeandleisure]

You can also refer it to the financial ombudsman... there is some useful information on their website with nice examples which may help...

 

[Wighty]

I looked up the definition of the word theft in law, it states: A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

It doesn't say 'but excludes family members, as such theft is dealt with by the police, the police officer I reported it to did not dismiss my report by saying it was civil, however I am not about to pursue this theft now, my following post will explain.

I stand by my comments , I was a Police Officer for over a decade buddy . The theft definition is obviously correct but the lending part was done before the permanently depriving part which makes it a dispute rather than theft .
My comments are for your information only , I’m not judging you , because most people without legal training think it would be theft .

 

[malcolm E53 AMG]

I did pay with a credit card over the phone goods unseen, the company are looking into it, but they say nothing is certain, they are taking a long time and keep asking for information I have given to them a number of times already.

Credit card companies are very good regarding resolving disputes I had a disagreement with a double glazing company who didn’t honour their contract to do the job in a timely manner and had a full refund of the deposit returned to me via them. Hope you get a quick resolution to this and to do that you may have to hand over the V5 but as this is now in the hands of the legal team at the CC company that shouldn’t pose a problem

 

[JoeHorner]

The mount is a tricky one in MOT terms. The failure criteria is:

(a) An engine mounting or bracket:

(i) severely damaged or deteriorated resulting in excessive movement

Since (I believe) there are two of these reaction mounts fitted, it's entirely possible for one to be pretty badly shot without excessive movement showing - especially given how limited a tester is in what he can do to test.

Similarly, with the EML, depending on what's setting it the dealer could well have reset it knowing it'd last as long as the test.

That's not to excuse either, just to give a warning about what you could be facing if this gets more unpleasant.

As for the V5 / new owner's slip.

If he'd started the change if owner then there's no way for him to stop it with DVLA. Even if he tries to buy a new V5 (as change of keeper, document lost) they'll write to you as the current keeper to confirm.

It's more likely that he gasn't submitted the change yet and (reasonably) wants the new keeper slip back to prevent you from claiming a new V5 with it once you've been refunded.

You can check the status of the V5 using the MOT online check.

* Go to https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/ and enter the details as usual.

* Once you have the MOT history showing, click on one of the "show test location" links and it'll ask for the current V5 reference number (11 digits).

* enter the document reference off the new keeper supplement WITHOUT the first digit (they add one on the NKS)

If it shows the location then the supplement you have is still valid and no change has been started yet.

If it throws an error then he's already submitted the change and you should get a new V5 in a few days.

 

[curly]

I stand by my comments , I was a Police Officer for over a decade buddy . The theft definition is obviously correct but the lending part was done before the permanently depriving part which makes it a dispute rather than theft .
My comments are for your information only , I’m not judging you , because most people without legal training think it would be theft .

Okay, I understand, but if it was the use of certain words would it make any difference if the words were "you can use this bike so we can do ride outs together but I want it back" is that theft?

 

[curly]

Credit card companies are very good regarding resolving disputes I had a disagreement with a double glazing company who didn’t honour their contract to do the job in a timely manner and had a full refund of the deposit returned to me via them. Hope you get a quick resolution to this and to do that you may have to hand over the V5 but as this is now in the hands of the legal team at the CC company that shouldn’t pose a problem

I never received the V5, it never came, as I mentioned above, that is what makes me suspicious about his attitude.

 

[malcolm E53 AMG]

Sorry, obviously didn’t see that but try and relax and let the CC people sort it out you are covered by their refund policy if the other party is found to be at fault and as I found out with my claim they are very thorough and forensic in their approach so it will take time to resolve. I sometimes wonder why society is willing to pay 3% more for everything they buy with a CC buy but it does have some advantages when it comes to a claim no vendor wants to fall foul of these people it could put them out of business

 

[curly]

The mount is a tricky one in MOT terms. The failure criteria is:

(a) An engine mounting or bracket:

(i) severely damaged or deteriorated resulting in excessive movement

Since (I believe) there are two of these reaction mounts fitted, it's entirely possible for one to be pretty badly shot without excessive movement showing - especially given how limited a tester is in what he can do to test.

Similarly, with the EML, depending on what's setting it the dealer could well have reset it knowing it'd last as long as the test.

That's not to excuse either, just to give a warning about what you could be facing if this gets more unpleasant.

As for the V5 / new owner's slip.

If he'd started the change if owner then there's no way for him to stop it with DVLA. Even if he tries to buy a new V5 (as change of keeper, document lost) they'll write to you as the current keeper to confirm.

It's more likely that he gasn't submitted the change yet and (reasonably) wants the new keeper slip back to prevent you from claiming a new V5 with it once you've been refunded.

You can check the status of the V5 using the MOT online check.

* Go to https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/ and enter the details as usual.

* Once you have the MOT history showing, click on one of the "show test location" links and it'll ask for the current V5 reference number (11 digits).

* enter the document reference off the new keeper supplement WITHOUT the first digit (they add one on the NKS)

If it shows the location then the supplement you have is still valid and no change has been started yet.

If it throws an error then he's already submitted the change and you should get a new V5 in a few days.

I have followed your directions and it appears that the supplement I have is still valid and no change has been started, but I informed DVLA I was the new keeper three weeks ago, but I have already received a V5 for a car I bought two weeks after that.

 

[Wighty]

Okay, I understand, but if it was the use of certain words would it make any difference if the words were "you can use this bike so we can do ride outs together but I want it back" is that theft?

Nope still not theft . Civil dispute is probably a better way to get the bike back or a monetary settlement so don’t feel that it’s a second rate option

 

[JoeHorner]

I have followed your directions and it appears that the supplement I have is still valid and no change has been started, but I informed DVLA I was the new keeper three weeks ago, but I have already received a V5 for a car I bought two weeks after that.

How did you do the change with DVLA?

If you used the number from the New Keeper supplement then I believe they try to confirm with the previous keeper (they write to them and allow 28 days for a response, then issue the new one if they don't hear back). Until then the old reference is still valid.

The way to get round that is to use the "trimmed" number as above and notify them as if you were the seller. That goes through automatically and usually arrives in a couple of days. But I didn't say that.

As things stand, you could always point out the possibility of adding an extra previous keeper to the records (and one who only kept the car for a few weeks). That can make cars a lot harder to sell.....

 

[curly]

But as I understand it the V5 is not proof of ownership, so does it matter who has the V5 from that point of view, if the dealer obtained a new V5 and then sold the car with that new V5 would that be fraud or any other illegal activity.