Ford Owners Club - Ford Forums Messages


Join us on the Ford Owners Club stand at Ford Fair, Silverstone on Sunday 6th August 2017.

Click this link to find out more

AdBlock Warning

Parts of this website do not function properly with AdBlock enabled on your device. To get the best user experience on our website, please disable Adblock for this website (domain) on your browser.

The Dark Knight

True Ford Enthusiast
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


The Dark Knight last won the day on March 29 2015

The Dark Knight had the most liked content!

About The Dark Knight

  • Rank
    The member the forum deserves but not the one it needs right now

Contact Methods

  • First Name

Profile Information

  • Gender*
  • Ford Model
    Non Ford
  • Ford Year
  • UK/Ireland Location
  • Annual Mileage
    5001 to 10,000

Recent Profile Visitors

4,774 profile views
  1. Word has reached my ear about this so I thought I'd share it here and copy my response from another forum re the Consumer Rights Act 2015. S.31 of the 2015 Act: (1)A term of a contract to supply goods is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would exclude or restrict the trader's liability arising under any of these provisions— (a)section 9 (goods to be of satisfactory quality); (b)section 10 (goods to be fit for particular purpose); (c)section 11 (goods to be as described); (d)section 12 (other pre-contract information included in contract); (e)section 13 (goods to match a sample); (f)section 14 (goods to match a model seen or examined); (2)That also means that a term of a contract to supply goods is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would— (a)exclude or restrict a right or remedy in respect of a liability under a provision listed in subsection (1), (b)make such a right or remedy or its enforcement subject to a restrictive or onerous condition, (c)allow a trader to put a person at a disadvantage as a result of pursuing such a right or remedy Oh and let's not forget the crap that JLR dealers could land themselves in with trading standards for breaching the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008: Aggressive commercial practices 7.—(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances— (a)it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and (b)it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. (2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of— (a)its timing, location, nature or persistence; (b)the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour; (c)the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product; (d)any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and (e)any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken. (3) In this regulation— (a)“coercion” includes the use of physical force; and (b)“undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision Penalty for offences 13. A person guilty of an offence under regulation 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 shall be liable— (a)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or (b)on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.
  2. 8 years. Should have been longer so let's hope he gets duffed up inside.
  3. This bellend is being sentenced at Derby Crown Court on Monday. Technically the cop could have continued but if he had been pursuing when this happened, the IPCC would have had many cards to play. This shuts them up altogether. Well worth watching the footage. Absolute scumbag
  4. Yep
  5. Any warranty small print that says they don't have to honour the warranty if fitted by another garage is insignificant. The warranty is a separate entity to your statutory rights as already mentioned above. You would have also been covered under S.15 of the Act if you'd have had it installed by Ford. That section covers installation of a product and of course labour costs. Any replacement part that you have fitted by Ford will be chargeable in terms of labour. If you discovered that the part was in fact installed incorrectly by the other garage, then you could return to them and look at sections 48, 54 & 55 of the Act. In simple terms this means the garage should use care and skill when installing something and if they don't, you could force them to do it again at their expense. It really comes down to whether the part was faulty or if it was just installed incorrectly. Maybe it's a case of both!
  6. True. Luckily in insurance disputes its a case of the balance of probabilities so I guess they would conclude why on earth would I indicate left but turn right. Although some insurers just go split liability for the quiet life!
  7. I cranked the volume right up and can just about hear the indicator.
  8. The guy in the first clip did a u-turn at a bank of traffic lights and by the time he had completed it, the traffic to the right of the camera had gone to green! In the second clip, despite me indicating right and having right of way, the van driver went anyway! I hope I never have an incident where I need to prove I was indicating though because the indicators are ridiculously quiet and inaudible!! - Footage from Roadhawk DC-2.
  9. Just magnificent.
  10. Absolutely
  11. Can we just take a moment to applaud this man. Those terrible cowardly attacks summed up nicely.
  12. I assume there is some sort of watchdog that oversees car dealers and warranty companies etc. or at the other end of the scale, you try to prove that its their fault and sue them for cost of repair. Would be difficult unless you have documentary evidence of these fob offs. They will just say they never said that when confronted.