Solicitor to sue an Audi dealer
Discussion
BertBert said:
The OP didn't speak to the dealer, the seller did!
Extract from one of the OP's replies. He did speak directly with the dealer.davidcw58 said:
I was interested in buying but needed to get a handle on a gearbox fault warning light. She took the car into Audi to have it investigated. They did a diagnostic and vehicle health check.
Their diagnostic conclusion was ‘Drive position sensor electrical malfunction requires basic setting. Further work required’ They quoted £300 for that and and a further £1600 for various other works (including leaking rear diff seals) . As it said 'further work required' I rang them to discuss. I explained I was interested in buying but obviously wouldn't if there was a big gearbox problem. I specifically asked if the reset was the 'further work required' and would that cure the problem or would further work be required. She went away for a few minutes and then came back and said the reset would cure the problem. On that basis I bought the car with an appropriate allowance for the cost of all the works they had identified.
Their diagnostic conclusion was ‘Drive position sensor electrical malfunction requires basic setting. Further work required’ They quoted £300 for that and and a further £1600 for various other works (including leaking rear diff seals) . As it said 'further work required' I rang them to discuss. I explained I was interested in buying but obviously wouldn't if there was a big gearbox problem. I specifically asked if the reset was the 'further work required' and would that cure the problem or would further work be required. She went away for a few minutes and then came back and said the reset would cure the problem. On that basis I bought the car with an appropriate allowance for the cost of all the works they had identified.
superlightr said:
davidcw58 said:
I'm usually pretty pragmatic but in this case I feel there is a principle. Maybe I won't win but i'm prepared to spend some money
oooo yummy ! - used to love hearing that phrase when I was a solicitor.nikaiyo2 said:
KungFuPanda said:
I’d hate to be the solicitor that’s stupid enough to take this case on.
Win or lose, I fear the OP will try and sue the solicitor for professional negligence when he’s presented with the bill of costs…
Why? The solicitor won’t give a monkeys, they get paid whateverWin or lose, I fear the OP will try and sue the solicitor for professional negligence when he’s presented with the bill of costs…
Roger Irrelevant said:
As per my above post, clients who loudly proclaim that their principles are worth more than money - and so plough on with a doomed case - have a funny tendency to resist parting with money when it comes to settling their legal bills. Sometimes rather than admit that they were a bit daft to go against the advice of their solicitor in the first place they will instead form the belief that it was really the solicitor that was at fault and so start arguing against them. Exactly this happened to a colleague of mine; she got her fees in the end but only after a long, tedious battle which led her to rue the day she took that client on. I'm sure the OP wouldn't do such a thing but having seen it happen I wouldn't want to take the chance.
Exactly that. If someone can form an instantly irrational and angry response against one party they hardly know, they can do it against you. Hugo Stiglitz said:
Isn't there s duty of care to say 'look the chances of winning are slim and if you loose it could be tens of thousands or if you win you could lose tens of thousands?
Or am I looking at solicitors with polite roses glasses in a soft bunny filled room?
Yes a good solicitor should go through the real prospects of success alongside providing an estimate of costs. A good solicitor will be the one that tells their client what they might not want to hear rather than proceed blindly with their client’s instructions.Or am I looking at solicitors with polite roses glasses in a soft bunny filled room?
SteveKTMer said:
If you pay a solicitor to prosecute a car dealer you have no contract with and who has no legal obligation to you, then I need to speak to you about some magic beans I would like to sell, they're probably just right for you.
To the OP - please read and take this on board, it has been said numerous times that you have no come back to the dealer. You had no contract with them. So you can either...1) Sue the seller (good luck on that, there a few pistonhead threads about people buying second hand cars and then finding a fault..
or
2) Get the orginal seller to sue the dealer (as they had the contract with them), not you...
or
3) Suck it up...
Good luck !
GCCP said:
To the OP - please read and take this on board, it has been said numerous times that you have no come back to the dealer. You had no contract with them. So you can either...
1) Sue the seller (good luck on that, there a few pistonhead threads about people buying second hand cars and then finding a fault..
or
2) Get the orginal seller to sue the dealer (as they had the contract with them), not you...
or
3) Suck it up...
Good luck !
I should not worry, the OP flounced off yesterday morning.1) Sue the seller (good luck on that, there a few pistonhead threads about people buying second hand cars and then finding a fault..
or
2) Get the orginal seller to sue the dealer (as they had the contract with them), not you...
or
3) Suck it up...
Good luck !
KungFuPanda said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Isn't there s duty of care to say 'look the chances of winning are slim and if you loose it could be tens of thousands or if you win you could lose tens of thousands?
Or am I looking at solicitors with polite roses glasses in a soft bunny filled room?
Yes a good solicitor should go through the real prospects of success alongside providing an estimate of costs. A good solicitor will be the one that tells their client what they might not want to hear rather than proceed blindly with their client’s instructions.Or am I looking at solicitors with polite roses glasses in a soft bunny filled room?
I once worked on a matter where a longstanding client of the firm decided that they were going to sue an ex-director for various supposed transgressions. The client was told repeatedly, in writing and in no uncertain terms, that they were on to a loser and that they were throwing money down the drain. Didn't matter, they wanted to press on and said they didn't even care if they lost as they felt duty bound to pursue the claim. We didn't ask for payment upfront given our long track record of working with the client. Long story short we lost and the firm took a massive bath on it - the client threw their toys out of the pram re our costs (which they'd been kept fully informed of throughout), and the senior partners decided not to bother pursuing the client for them as they though they'd get more business in future. As it turns out they didn't.
As an aside, it's not the case that a lack of contract between the Op and the dealer means there can't be any grounds to sue. There is the tort of negligent mistatement that could cover this type of situation and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the OP has a case, but I wouldn't fancy it with only a few grand at stake.
davidcw58 said:
Litigation is an emotional and time consuming path and I have better things to do on both counts. HOWEVER, I have been very calm and reasonable and they haven't made a proper effort to resolve it so they have pissed me off. The claim will now be in excess of £5000 but less than £10,000. The scope of my original claim was scaled down to make it easier to settle but as they don't want to pay anything or do any rectification works I plan to include all the works, time, car hire, travel, and anything else legitimate.
I could do what used to be called the small claims procedure but I think I need a bit of advice beforehand.
A full claim rather than a small claims procedure will involve more costs for both them and me but might encourage them to settle
From experience, I fear your costs logic is flawed. They will undoubtedly have legal insurance, so their costs are unlikely to factor too much in their decision making.I could do what used to be called the small claims procedure but I think I need a bit of advice beforehand.
A full claim rather than a small claims procedure will involve more costs for both them and me but might encourage them to settle
For this level of claim, I’d go the small claims track (that’s both quantum of claim and complexity of case), to protect yourself against the prospect of costs if you lose. Unless you are also insured against legal costs.
Actual said:
If you use small claims then possibly they will ignore it and not turn up to defend and the case could default to you. Is this how it works?
This is where we were 7 pages ago. Small Claims is the obvious route if he wants to give them a thump at minimal risk to himself. But the OP seems determined to rack up a huge legal bill chasing geese that may turn out to be wild. I have no idea why.Simpo Two said:
This is where we were 7 pages ago. Small Claims is the obvious route if he wants to give them a thump at minimal risk to himself. But the OP seems determined to rack up a huge legal bill chasing geese that may turn out to be wild. I have no idea why.
There won't be a thump either way. The staff at the Audi dealership will have very little involvement whatever happens. It'll pass to solicitors and maybe they'd have to sign a witness statement or two. Worst case they have to lose half a day at work to appear. It won't matter to them. Meanwhile the OP will spend many hours thinking about it, because it's personal. He won't have a solicitor doing it all for him, because the cost is prohibitive. Forester1965 said:
There won't be a thump either way. The staff at the Audi dealership will have very little involvement whatever happens. It'll pass to solicitors and maybe they'd have to sign a witness statement or two. Worst case they have to lose half a day at work to appear. It won't matter to them. Meanwhile the OP will spend many hours thinking about it, because it's personal. He won't have a solicitor doing it all for him, because the cost is prohibitive.
Although unless the solicitors are in-house they will have to pay their bill, so it will cost them some money. I can't see it going beyond dealer level TBH, it's a local scuffle and a very small one.I hope the OP reports back in due course. He may not have a leg to stand on, or maybe he has, maybe he'll get some satisfaction or maybe he won't. But I have some sympathy because we've al been 'wronged' at times, and sometimes just walking away isn't an answer.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff