|
Hi Bonzo Dog, thanks for your input.
In relation to your points.
- When i first met my solicitor he worked for example in 'A' firm, then he told me he is leaving that company and moving onto 'B' firm - it was from here where he told me to stop paying thankfully udner the headed paper. So when i found out he got the sack, i complained and we tried to resolve it because it was just something i didn't need added to the whole case anyway, because our legal insurance had not been approved yet, i owed company 'B' some money for the works that the solicitor who got the sack had done...i refused & wanted my files, the resolution was that they won't charge me for his works and give me a discount on a new solicitor. Apparently when they found out he done NO work for me, they looked into his file and found out he done nothing for 3 other cases. So to avoid any further delay i accepted the offer and am still with the new solicitor in the same firm, of which i am very happy with the way she is dealing with it so far.
- I do understand now that its irrelevant whether or not i got the poor advice when it comes to a financial agreement, don't get me wrong perhaps common sense should have pointed that out at the time, but i just didn't spot it because i wanted to resolve the whole issue as fast as possible, hearing that i shouldn't pay until this had been sorted was the best news at the time. It's not even now that i want to start paying...it was back in April 2010 about 1 week after i got told i was given bad advice i offered Link Finance a payment scheme of Normal monthly payments as i was giving in the 1st agreement +more to clear the debt. I enetered into an agreement with Mazda credit 1st and now they sold the debt onto Link, so now the agreement would be with them. So, i have sent another letter to Link today giving them the same offer as i did in April highlighting the fact that they never replied to my letter & if they did so we wouldn't be in this bad mess.
- It's not pathetic to say that, it's true - even the manager of Mazda agreed with me and they said they will look into changing that so customers do not get the wrong idea. The petrol consumption is a completely different example to what actually happened. At the time of the sale, no brochure, documentation even small print mentioned about the DPF system and how the system is VITAL to the engines day to day running, it is mentioned in a small paragraph in a huge manual...obviously you would have this manual after buying the car...How else would you know. We as a family went from a 2005 VW golf with no dpf to a car that includes new technology...our 1st thought aswell as many many others is... what the hell is a DPF and are you joking that you have to have limitations to your driving, i.e. i can't pop to tescos and back as it may cause engine damage? They should have a policy that tells the customer look, if you carry out longer journeys then the diesel will be much more efficient as it has a diesel particulate filter inside & if the customer didn't know what that is the sales person will kindly explain it. Whereas in my case if they asked as a standard question, do you mainly drive in-town or long distances? i would have said in-town and they would have offered me the petrol car....We wouldn't be here discussing this now.
- The only warning we have is inside the engine, a small enough sticker to warn you of your oil levels and when you should take it to a dealer if it rises to the X mark. Other than that, as i mentioned above one small paragraph in the manual, of which hardly tells you anything. Our work van, VW Crafter 2010 has a sticker on the windscreen to tell you what to do, we have had the dpf light come on twice within 6,000 miles but even though our journey is approx. 40 miles to work per day we are stuck in traffic in parts of it so its just like driving in town right? VW have covered them self, even on the keyring it has a small information label to tell us about the DPF and what to do, in-fact VW service have been fantastic, offering us free oil changes if it rises but quote by VW support "its a different system to Mazda, cant say anymore than that - the oil will balance" other stories have come back and said VW refused to give the customer their car back because it was dangerous, until they found a fix.
Your advice points:
- Before you posted that, i had already offered the finance people as what i mentioned above. My solicitor and free legal advice said they should be more than reasonable with that offer and should accept it. the cheque went with the letter so have to see if they bank it.
- Complaining to the legal firm will do nothing for me at the moment.
- This is the whole point i am arguing with all parties, i was very close to either being seriously injured or getting killed - due to good luck on the day, i managed to swerve between cars whilst travelling at 100mph+ and approaching a roundabout 700 yards away and switch off the engine and force my self to a stop on a lay-by. When it got towed back to my local mazda dealer they took ages finding the problem & it was only due to me doing my research at the time which led me "helping" mazda find the problem. Mazda offered to give me a free service... i mean come on, who in there right mind would accept that after having a fright like that!? a service.. hence the reason why i refused.
Please do not take any of the above personal bonzo, i dont mean to come across rude in parts, just trying to explain.
Injection doc is correct - there is an issue with Mazda & perhaps it was meant to happen to me for when/if this goes to court, the courts can realise the danger of it and force them to change the system. Watchdog is a difficult one, i actually went down to their office in london and put it forward to them, the lady said this would be something they are interested in and will get back to me.. nothing, but the media are interested ocne it gets to the court stage.
Just to add, how can anyone explain the following.
Mazda say check your oil levels on a period basis, confirmed by Mazda as weekly checks are neccessary. On the week of this over-run occuring - i travelled a great distance with the g.f. across england, must have easily done over 1,200 miles minimum (i won't forget that journey, wow was that a LONG trip)...If Mazda state weekly checks are essential, they must be averaging that on a set miles that an average person will carry out in a week, correct? so, as i done 1,200 min. there is no stated set mileage by mazda to check your oils, does this mean i should perhaps stop on a hard shoulder of a motorway to check if my oil levels have risen (don't forget, there is no warning light for high oil, and no warning light appeared for DPF in my case)? It is a crazy theory, the whole system should have been properly tested before it was introduced to the customer.
Plus, the government forced this on manufacturers to meet the EURO IV emmision control - i can't see how thats helping if you have to get you oil changed more often and drive at higher speeds than neccessary to burn the soot in the dpf that does not work as it should be anyway!
Edited by Med on 25/11/2010 at 19:14
|
