letter of intent
- Thread starter Diagro
- Start date
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,571
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
Remove names and numbers and post it up here mate
04/06/2014
------
This is a Letter before action.
It’s been 37 days since the date given for me to receive the contribution to repairs on the -------. Therefore I will be rejecting the “Goodwill Contribution”.
I will be claiming the entire value of the repairs that were carried out by --- on the 12/05/2014, These repairs were vital to get the car in a road worthy state.
I will be claiming the entire value if this issue is taken to court, you would also be liable for extra costs if this matter is taken to court.
The facts for this matter are stated below:
1. Car sold in a state that car only achieved 8.9MPG, a figure based on 10 Gallons getting the car to 89Miles.
2. Car sold in a state where dephaser pully was broken, causing oil to leak on Cambelt and Aux Belt. This issue caused the entire set of parts to be replaced or face an engine failure if not rectified.
3. (Not In Claim) Car sold in a state were Cabin cooling fans were non-functional due to removal of fuse in engine bay.
4. (Not In Claim) Car Was sold on premise of blowing exhaust to be repaired, This was carried out but instead of a repair to existing exhaust, a low value aftermarket exhaust was fitted causing unwanted noise.
The Total cost for the facts 1 & 2 were £945.49
A Breakdown of these costs can be supplied.
As I recall you were unhappy that I decided to use my own choice of garage to do the repairs, the reason for this is because I couldn't afford not to have the car due to a new job starting, and it had to be repaired within a small time frame which --- were able to provide.
Along with the fact that according to --- the issue was apparent as soon as you turned the engine on, and how ---- missed it throws up doubts that they were equipped to do the job correctly.
The Warranty you supplied with the car is a third party warranty which after talking with the warranty agent they would not cover these repairs as they would have been apparent before the sale of the warranty.
P-T-O
I will remind you of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 says that a car sold by a Dealer such as yourself should be:
• Of a satisfactory quality
• Fit for its intended purpose
• As described
All of which the above did NOT apply to the Car after purchase.
I would also like to make you aware of a court case that concluded with the judge rejecting the dealers “right to repair” Which means: “It means that a dealer selling a car which breaks down has no automatic right to be consulted over the repair if the customer has it fixed elsewhere and charges the costs to the dealer, a court has ruled.” CarDealersMagazine(2011)
“‘They need to have a clearly defined repair and returns policy or they potentially face significant financial loss’” CarDealersMagazine(2011)
This “right to repair” that dealers believe they are legally entitled too doesn’t exist:
“While Mr Barnes ought to have consulted the dealer first, as a member of the public he may not have known this and there is nothing in the Sale of Goods Act which requires him to do so’ said the judge.” CarDealersMagazine(2011)
To conclude, I am giving you 14 days from the 17/06/2014 to reply in full.
If you do not reply in writing by 01/07/2014 I will be forced to take legal action against you for the Total sum of £945.49 Plus any legal costs.
I am willing to use an alternative dispute resolution like mediation to sort out this problem.
Many Thanks
------
CarDealerMagazine (2011) Court rejects dealer’s right to repair [Online] Available from: http://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publ...repair-fault-and-orders-him-to-pay-2750/52909
conditions/Mobile-phone-safety/Pages/Introduction.aspx[Accessed 08/08/12].
------
This is a Letter before action.
It’s been 37 days since the date given for me to receive the contribution to repairs on the -------. Therefore I will be rejecting the “Goodwill Contribution”.
I will be claiming the entire value of the repairs that were carried out by --- on the 12/05/2014, These repairs were vital to get the car in a road worthy state.
I will be claiming the entire value if this issue is taken to court, you would also be liable for extra costs if this matter is taken to court.
The facts for this matter are stated below:
1. Car sold in a state that car only achieved 8.9MPG, a figure based on 10 Gallons getting the car to 89Miles.
2. Car sold in a state where dephaser pully was broken, causing oil to leak on Cambelt and Aux Belt. This issue caused the entire set of parts to be replaced or face an engine failure if not rectified.
3. (Not In Claim) Car sold in a state were Cabin cooling fans were non-functional due to removal of fuse in engine bay.
4. (Not In Claim) Car Was sold on premise of blowing exhaust to be repaired, This was carried out but instead of a repair to existing exhaust, a low value aftermarket exhaust was fitted causing unwanted noise.
The Total cost for the facts 1 & 2 were £945.49
A Breakdown of these costs can be supplied.
As I recall you were unhappy that I decided to use my own choice of garage to do the repairs, the reason for this is because I couldn't afford not to have the car due to a new job starting, and it had to be repaired within a small time frame which --- were able to provide.
Along with the fact that according to --- the issue was apparent as soon as you turned the engine on, and how ---- missed it throws up doubts that they were equipped to do the job correctly.
The Warranty you supplied with the car is a third party warranty which after talking with the warranty agent they would not cover these repairs as they would have been apparent before the sale of the warranty.
P-T-O
I will remind you of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 says that a car sold by a Dealer such as yourself should be:
• Of a satisfactory quality
• Fit for its intended purpose
• As described
All of which the above did NOT apply to the Car after purchase.
I would also like to make you aware of a court case that concluded with the judge rejecting the dealers “right to repair” Which means: “It means that a dealer selling a car which breaks down has no automatic right to be consulted over the repair if the customer has it fixed elsewhere and charges the costs to the dealer, a court has ruled.” CarDealersMagazine(2011)
“‘They need to have a clearly defined repair and returns policy or they potentially face significant financial loss’” CarDealersMagazine(2011)
This “right to repair” that dealers believe they are legally entitled too doesn’t exist:
“While Mr Barnes ought to have consulted the dealer first, as a member of the public he may not have known this and there is nothing in the Sale of Goods Act which requires him to do so’ said the judge.” CarDealersMagazine(2011)
To conclude, I am giving you 14 days from the 17/06/2014 to reply in full.
If you do not reply in writing by 01/07/2014 I will be forced to take legal action against you for the Total sum of £945.49 Plus any legal costs.
I am willing to use an alternative dispute resolution like mediation to sort out this problem.
Many Thanks
------
CarDealerMagazine (2011) Court rejects dealer’s right to repair [Online] Available from: http://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publ...repair-fault-and-orders-him-to-pay-2750/52909
conditions/Mobile-phone-safety/Pages/Introduction.aspx[Accessed 08/08/12].
There we go
I did try and keep it all factual, and to the point.
Quoted some legal stuff and also a previous court case to show that i am serious with my intentions.
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
If you are going to quote case law, quote the case not some random magazine as a magazine has no legal influence but case law very much does. Find the court that ruled that the dealer has no automatic right to repair it themselves, if that happened, and quote the case.
[TW]Fox;26468527 said:
Any idea how to search for such stuff?
Google has only taken me so far.
Also for the intentions of the letter, Its to show I am serious.
if it went to court then i would most likely make some calls and find the court case and present it.
Last edited:
But doesn't actually link to a Court ruling link?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,701
- Location
- Cheshire
I cant add too much to this, other than don't sign off with "Many Thanks", use 'Sincerely'.
I'd go over it for grammar corrections. There are a few instances where you've capitalised certain words, used strange tense, missed a word out, etc.
Copying it into Word will probably highlight the majority. Also you've entered several carriage returns but not started a separate paragraph, I'd keep them on the same line or add an empty line underneath.
I also agree with those before me, and I would lose the P-T-O personally.
(Not having a go, hopefully constructive).
Copying it into Word will probably highlight the majority. Also you've entered several carriage returns but not started a separate paragraph, I'd keep them on the same line or add an empty line underneath.
I also agree with those before me, and I would lose the P-T-O personally.
(Not having a go, hopefully constructive).
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Without Prejudice is what you want to use if you're pretending that you know law.
It's spelled dephaser pulley.
There's quite a lot of poorly phrased sentences. The one about the time frame it was repaired in for example. I'm not a grammar genius (far from it infact) so take the below with a pinch of salt, however I would have phrased it something like "I contacted yourself on Wdate after all of the issues came to my attention, however the lead time offered by yourselves to complete the repairs was unacceptable at Xdays. I therefore faced no other choice than to arrange for the work to be completed by a third party (Y), who were able to carry out the repairs within Zdays."
It's spelled dephaser pulley.
There's quite a lot of poorly phrased sentences. The one about the time frame it was repaired in for example. I'm not a grammar genius (far from it infact) so take the below with a pinch of salt, however I would have phrased it something like "I contacted yourself on Wdate after all of the issues came to my attention, however the lead time offered by yourselves to complete the repairs was unacceptable at Xdays. I therefore faced no other choice than to arrange for the work to be completed by a third party (Y), who were able to carry out the repairs within Zdays."
Last edited:
Only if you don't want the contents of the letter to be used as evidence in court surely?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
[TW]Fox;26470073 said:
How would I know!? It's just the phrase you see bandied around when people are trying to scare each other with lawyer'y things
.@OP: Why are you only claiming for two of the four facts? Why not go after them for the whole lot?
How would I know!? It's just the phrase you see bandied around when people are trying to scare each other with lawyer'y things
@OP: Why are you only claiming for two of the four facts? Why not go after them for the whole lot?
I have fixed the others myself, simple back box so paid for genuine.
Cooling fans was a £5 fuse.
The only issue i see when / if it goes to court is this whole thing where dealers think they Have to be given a chance to repair something.
if something needs repairing it needs repairing, there are no two ways around that.
It gets fixed by his choice of garage or by my choice... His is a back street garage who has NO internet presence or reviews and mine is a well known Renault Specialist.
Both would charge the same for the work...
His choice couldn't do it for a couple weeks. and mine did it right away.
Made sense to get it done.
BUT he is useing the fact i went "Behind his back" WITH MY OWN DAMN CAR no less to be fixed. And he could have had it done for free under this third party warranty as his garage would word it so its covered. (fraud no?)
Sigh
if something needs repairing it needs repairing, there are no two ways around that.
It gets fixed by his choice of garage or by my choice... His is a back street garage who has NO internet presence or reviews and mine is a well known Renault Specialist.
Both would charge the same for the work...
His choice couldn't do it for a couple weeks. and mine did it right away.
Made sense to get it done.
BUT he is useing the fact i went "Behind his back" WITH MY OWN DAMN CAR no less to be fixed. And he could have had it done for free under this third party warranty as his garage would word it so its covered. (fraud no?)
Sigh
Nope. he just said you will have to work around the garage... Not exactly fair for me to miss 2 weeks of work at a new job due to that
The car obviously had serious issues.. Proven by having to spend the best part of a grand on it.. You were not given much choice really, as the garage left you with no sensible alternative.
Stick to your guns, it sounds like a pretty strong case.
Stick to your guns, it sounds like a pretty strong case.