2009

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

26 February 2009 – Click here to read supporting document

My solicitor received a letter from M-B’s Legal Department requesting: “… your client makes arrangements to have his vehicle recovered” and reserving the right to charge storage at £25 per day. This was despite the vehicle’s not having an MOT and M B’s refusing to allow an inspection as to the condition of my car which they had had for over three years.

22 March 2009 – Click here to read supporting document

My solicitor wrote to M-B suggesting a way forward from the impasse which had occurred as I was not prepared to remove my vehicle from M-B Chelsea without an MOT or an inspection.

23 April 2009

I requested DEKRA to inspect and report on the condition of my vehicle but M-B Chelsea referred DEKRA to Matthew Marsh, Solicitor at M B’s Head office.

30 April 2009 – Click here to read supporting document

I wrote to Neil Williamson, MD M-B Cars but I never had the courtesy of a reply.

7 May 2009

I received a letter from DEKRA informing me that they were unable to carry out an inspection due to the vehicle’s not having a current MOT.

5 June 2009 – Click here to read supporting document

Mercedes-Benz, finally seven months after being ordered to do so, paid my £28,000 costs This sum was less than my actual costs, which were in excess of £36,000.

5 June 2009 Click here to read supporting document

M B’s Legal Department wrote to me: “to assist you, we have put your vehicle through its MOT, where it passed, and now has a valid certificate for one year”. The Certificate was however not attached. The Certificate arrived 28 days after it was issued. Note, there can be no complaint about an MOT after 28 days.

7 June 2009 Click here to read supporting document

These two reports were the sum total of all correspondence between MB and Mondial. From 2005 to 10 November 2008; just two pieces if paper?

8 June 2009 Click here to read DERKRA

Joanna Taskis from DEKRA telephoned Matthew Marsh, Solicitor, M-B Head Office, to enquire whether M B was going to permit DEKRA to inspect the vehicle on site but the request was refused.

9 June 2009

I wrote to Matthew Marsh asking if M B was willing to reconsider its ‘Drive your car away’ position but he too followed the no reply policy.

19 June 2009 – Click here to read: letter

I wrote again to Matthew Marsh informing him that his repeated requests that I “drive my car away, without an inspection” was not going to happen without an Order from the Court unless the remedial work needed to bring my car back to the condition it was in at November 2005 was carried out.

I also reserved the right to begin legal action against M B without further notice after 21 June 2009. As usual the no reply policy was followed.

22 June 2009 – Click here to read: letter to Mb and Click here to read: page 2

I wrote again to Matthew Marsh informing him of my intention to apply to the County Court for “an Order to have my car inspected whilst in your care” and “an Order to produce the correspondence between M B and Mondial/Olympic Recovery”.

23 June 2009 – Click here to read: Letter to MB

I wrote another letter to Matthew Marsh informing him that I had issued two claims in the Central County Court to address the financial losses which I had suffered since 10 November 2008, the date of the trial.

8 July 2009 – Click here to read: Court application and Click here to read: Court application 2

Two applications were lodged at Bow County Court:

1. To allow an inspection of the claimant’s vehicle by DEKRA,

2. To provide true copies of correspondence between themselves, Mondial and Olympic Recovery relating to vehicle registration S500 JRT.

9 July 2009 – Click here to read: DERKRA and Click here to read: letter

I received the notes from DEKRA detailing their efforts to arrange an inspection of my vehicle.

4 August 2009

Despite M B’s appearing in Court with a Barrister and two solicitors, HH Recorder Ullstein granted me my two applications. The first Injunction was that my car be inspected and the other Injunction was that M B provide true copies of correspondence between themselves, Mondial and Olympic Recovery relating to vehicle registration number S500 JRT. I represented myself.

5 August 2009 – Click here to read: letter from MB

My MobiloLife Road Assistance policy was restored!

6 August 2009 – Click here to read: MOT letter

The MOT certificate arrived from M-B 28 days after it was issued.

7 August 2009 – Click here to read: Letter from MB Olympic documents

I finally received the two reports from M B which showed the sheer scale of the duplicity of Mercedes-Benz and Mondial. There had been no Witness Statement or any copies of any correspondence between Mercedes Benz Assistance (Mondial) and Olympic Recovery.

The first report from Olympic Recovery to Mercedes-Benz Assistance (Mondial) was:

“Agent’s report- QS/6246-05

Received Mondial 30/12/2005

Dear Ian,

With ref to this job.

There was a third party at the location who gave us the keys and told us the vehicle is in the mews, our driver was unable to get the truck down the mews so he went to the vehicle with his booster pack.

[*]Connected the booster pack to the vehicle and started it, he then followed our procedure by turning on all the electrics on ie ( heater motor, lights, heated screen and so on)- we do this so we can check the charging rate on the alternator and to prevent an electrical surcharge from happening. The alternator in this case was charging at the correct level. We also leave our booster packs connected for a further 10 15 mins to ensure that the vehicle battery has gained enough charge to maintain it’s self. The car [*] was then drove out of the mews to where the recovery truck was parked by this stage the vehicle was stopping and starting under its own steam.

We advised the person in charge of this but we were asked to take the vehicle to the main dealers as this was an ongoing problem which was ongoing for a while.

The vehicle was recovered to the main dealers were it started on its own steam again we drove it into a parking space, got a signature and our drive went to his next job.

All of our booster packs are surge protected.

Many thanks

Sharon”

This report, between the * was on the print-out I obtained from M B in January 2006. To deliberately withhold highly relevant evidence is quite simply Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.

This also proves that Jon Burgess knew of this report and that he had done nothing to prevent this miscarriage of justice. In fact he had colluded in the Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.

The second report from Olympic Recovery was sent to Mondial and is dated the 8 February 2006

“Hi Ian

Re: S500JRT

PROCEDURE WE CARRIED OUT AS FOLLOWS

  • Place jump and carry pack on vehicle

  • Started vehicle

  • Turned on side lights and accessories

  • Left booster pack connected for approx 15 mins with all lights and ancillaries turned on

  • Checked charging rate of alternator – all was ok

  • Took of booster pack with charge meter still connected.

  • One by one turned off all lights and accessories

  • Charge did not waiver – charge stayed constant

  • Drove vehicle to our recovery vehicle

  • Put onto recovery vehicle

  • Recovered vehicle to main agents

  • Parked outside the main agents, outside McDonald’s

  • Vehicle started under its own power

  • Drove vehicle into car park

  • Got signature and moved onto next job

AT NO TIME DID ANY WARNING LIGHTS COME ON THE DASHBOARD

Hope this can now be sorted out

Thanks

John” [Kayia, Olympic Recovery]

With these two reports in the possession of both Mercedes-Benz Retail UK and Mondial there should have never ever been a legal dispute, let alone three years of expensive, and too me stressful, litigation and a full day’s trial in the County Court.

MB’s conduct after their admittance in Court that I was not responsible for the damage was appalling for a so called ‘respectable, responsible, reputable Company’.

These documents should have been disclosed in the pre-trial documentation.

MB had failed to produce any paperwork concerning who had originally asked for the reports from the recovery company or to whom the reports had been given or when.

10 August 2009 – Click here to read supporting document

The Court-ordered inspection took place. DEKRA undertook the inspection.

Amongst the findings were:

“Essential Repairs.

Door handle o/s/r outer broken there remain sharp edges.

Body damage various ripples on n/s/f wing, o/s/f door and small dent on o/s/rear wing, o/s/ rear door.

Bonnet catch seized, when the handle is pulled it needs to be pushed back before bonnet can be closed.

Antifreeze is cloudy which indicates it needs changing.

Brake fluid needs changing.

Battery voltages low.

Door switch for mirror adjustment missing.

Steering wheel of centre bias to the right.

Damper front offside heavily corroded.

Disks are corroded and scored, pads are worn and at the limit.

Road holding/stability vehicle has brake judder, and suspension travel unsatisfactory.

General steering/handling vehicle wanders to the left, driver needs to keep correcting.

Foot brake operation difficult to pull up at high speed.”

After the inspection my vehicle was removed via a car-transporter to Olympic Recovery’s depot where another inspection by a specialist Automotive Engineering Consultancy was undertaken at my expense.

28 August 2009 Click here to read supporting document

Elite inspection

28 September 2009

The further inspection of my vehicle took place by Automotive Engineering Consultancy. The highlights of this report were:

“At 105. The general condition of the vehicle.

The examiner was extremely concerned that the above vehicle had been returned in its present condition the vehicle’s on-board instrumentation system clearly stating DO NOT DRIVE.

At 115. The qualities of the paint repairs that have been undertaken are of such poor standard that the defects are quite visible to the naked eye. The quality of paint reinstatement is not acceptable and not normally attributed to a brand of such high quality as Mercedes-Benz.

At 116. It is strongly advised to discuss the findings with your legal representative.”

My car was in such a terrible condition that it was sold for ‘parts’ to a motor trader.

When my car was recovered to Mercedes-Benz in 2005 it had been worth about £29,000 and by 2009, after being in ‘the care’ of Mercedes-Benz, it fetched £1,500.

25 June 2009

I submitted three “Small Claims” to the Central London County Court against Mercedes- Benz: Loss of use/benefit of 22 years’ MobiloLife warranty; Loss of use of my motor car from December 2005–July 2009; and Loss of the benefit of a “Full Mercedes-Benz Service History”.

14 August 2009

I sent another letter to Dr Wilfried Steffen, President and CEO, M-B, with copies of my letter to Dermot Kelly, MD, and the two reports from Olympic Recovery. As usual the no reply policy was followed.

17 August 2009

An unattributed letter from M-B’s Legal Department informed me that as goodwill gesture the benefit of the MobiloLife Road Assistance had been extended.

1 September 2009

I made an application for a Penal Notice for Contempt of Court against M-B, because M B had consistently failed to disclose correspondence from Mondial and Olympic Recovery despite every opportunity to do so.

3 September 2009

I made an Application to the Court for an Injunction against Mondial to produce correspondence between Mondial, Olympic Recovery and Mercedes-Benz. There had been several meeting between Jon Burgess of Mondial and Stewart Buckle, DaimlerChrysler Legal Executive UK Head Office, but evidently there had been neither notes nor correspondence between M-B and Mondial! This application was dismissed.

My subsequent Appeal to the High Court of Justice was refused on 9 November 2009.

4 September 2009

I sent a letter to Jon Burgess of Mondial asking why, having knowledge of the reports from Olympic Recovery and their contents, did he attend the Mediation meeting knowing full well that I was not responsible for the damage to my vehicle and that my vehicle was in working order when it was driven into M B Chelsea’s workshop’s car-park. Unsurprisingly a no reply policy was followed.

9 October 2009

My Application against M B for Contempt of Court was refused because my solicitor had failed to carry out my full instructions and my application to appeal was refused.

Continue to the 2010 archive

Leave a Reply