CF
no, not at all, i am not like that. they didnt even want to pay the £80 for me having to take them to the small claims court. but i suggested we go half way and they give me £1040. they agreed to this. the first conversation went something like this.
we would like to settle out of court, can you name a sensible price. i said £1080. but (they said) you only wanted £800 back then, isaid that was 3 months ago, i want the full lot. told them to get back to me before 5pm 24/05 as i would put papers in post. they rang at 4.00 and said yes to £1000, but then we discussed the extra £80. and yes it was a very large dealership in west midlands. i dont know wether or not Audi UK put any pressure on them, as i had sent all the details to customer services, who i might add, were very Friendly, and asked for all documents, i zipped them up and emailed. but yes i think my half hour with lawyer was really 100% helpful, i was even starting to doubt myself. but he restored my faith. i think if people have this problem, with a small company and threaten to send boys round, then yes i might have thought twice, as i have a family with 2 kids. i would have worried about their safty. but my conversations with Audi were never like that. But had no letter of apology. which i would like, might ring customer services, i have someones name there. obviously if they are paying up, they know they are in the wrong.
anyways, i am over the moon, and will having an extra special 2 week hols in Javea this year. :·)
thx 4 posting the link.
|
|
Well done tiredeyes. Frankly, any other result would have been a big surprise.
|
|
|
VTeyes, I'd be tempted to forget the letter of apology. It's just a tiny little bit of aggro you might want to do without. Your choice, but you do have the money, so you effectively have an apology.
V
|
|
Well done VTE glad you were gutsy enough to see it through.As said above you were always in the right and you knew it, which really bolsters your confidence in these situations.
|
|
Wait for the cheque to clear, then send all the details to the local press. You've got your money back, but were it me I'd want to get my own back on top of that.
|
Yeah, take Audi for every penny they have.
Alternatively, move on....
My vote is for the latter.
Seeing as it was a fair result...
|
i am glad i have a result, and yes best way is to move on
but..
what happens the next time someone has that happen to them, will they have the guts to take them to small claims, i am in no way brash or really confident, but if someone dosent have the guts to do it? they will lose out.
i think Audi Customer services should look into this.
and amend the terms and conditions on the back of their contract. As it still Directly violates the unfairs terms 1999.
shedule2 (D) put in laymans terms. the seller cannot change the terms of the contract without the buyer's full permission. if the seller does this, then the buyer can pull out, and they are both back to square one, ie: the buyer gets deposit back.
If a massive corperation like Audi can do this, what stops they turning round and saying the part excahnge is now worth £5. but you have signed contract so you still owe us £27K for that audi cabriolet. and if you dont pay us, we can sue you.
that is basically what the contract says.
madness!
Wonder if i should ask HJ to do an article about this in Sunday Telegraph?
|
Agreed, VTE. Not sure that HJ is really a crusading type of journalist but that's a matter for him.
As for the contract violating UCTA or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contacts Regs - it may or may not be a marque-wide policy. It could simply be a standard contract of this dealer group. Generally lawyers don't like drafting unenforceable provisions, because you can then be left with nothing more than an agreement to agree, which under English law can be walked away from at any time.
Of course, if the unfair provision is likely to intimidate more people into complying than cutting and running, then it's done its job.
As far as there being nothing stopping them from turning around and saying "We're only giving you a fiver for your p/x" - well if the contract is drafted widely, or badly enough (depending on your point of view) then you're right, except that's what courts have been interpreting against, by and large, for the last 150 years and UCTA and the Consumer Contracts Regs have been stopping for the last 25 or so.
|
|
|
|
|
