OUR STORY - and our County Court victory

THE STORY is in a scrolling text box. Click on it and use your mouse wheel or down arrow to roll it. If you can't be bothered reading it all, click this button to see the SHORT VERSION

RIGHT: our deposit and final invoices, from two different companies!

Although we owned a perfectly good K-reg Volkswagen Golf, as our four-year-old daughter has a medical condition and cannot be allowed to become too hot, we decided to replace our car with another that had air-conditioning. In late March 2007 we visited the premises of EXCEL. This, as we now know, was a bad mistake!

We explained to the "salesman" (a young man called Simon) that air-conditioning was the most important factor in our choice. We finally settled on an S-reg Ford Escort with a one-month warranty allegedly covering all parts and labour, and parted with £1694.00.  We collected the car on Thursday 5th April 2007 (the day before Good Friday). It looked immaculate, and drove beautifully on the journey home (about eight miles). And that is where the nice part of the story ends. We kept a diary of what happened next.

Thu 5 Apr 2007:  On arriving home we noticed a smell of petrol around the rear of the car but, as we had re-fuelled it on the way, we assumed that we must have splashed a few drips from the pump.

Fri 6 Apr 2007: (Good Friday). The smell of petrol continued from the rear of the car. We decided to contact Excel after the holiday weekend. The weather was very warm so we took the children out and switched on the air-conditioning.  It made all the right noises, and the little orange light came on, but it had no effect on the temperature inside the car. Our daughter was becoming uncomfortably hot, so we abandoned the air-conditioning and opened the windows. This pulled the petrol fumes into the car and we all felt very queasy. We also noticed that the temperature gauge barely moved. It stayed in the “cold” area even though the engine-cooling fan had come into action.

Tue 10 Apr 2007:  We contacted Excel, who suggested that we may have over-filled the tank. We pointed out that it had never been more than half-full. They asked us to bring the car in, but could not accommodate us until the following Monday. They refused to lend us a replacement car, and when I protested Simon told me, “I have better things to do with my time than this, you’re stressing me out!”  Then he hung up!

Mon 16 Apr 2007:  After spending a whole day with the car, their mechanic informed me that he had solved the petrol-fumes problem by “cleaning out the throttle box”.  This is located in the engine area, even though I had previously told them the fumes were coming from the back of the car. They said that they had ordered an earth-strap for the temperature gauge and would book the car into “the place that we use for air-conditioning” on our next visit. I drove the car home, and the petrol fumes were just as bad. I phoned Excel to be told that I was putting too much pressure on their mechanics by asking for the car back on the same day, and I would need to leave it longer so that they could investigate the problem and do the job properly.

Tue 24 Apr 2007:  In the morning I delivered the car to Excel.

Thu 26 Apr 2007:  In the evening I collected the car. The petrol fumes were just as strong and they had "not had time" to look at the air-conditioning or the temperature gauge.  When I complained, I was told that three days had not been long enough for them to “look at it properly”.

Tue 1 May 2007:  In the morning I delivered the car to Excel.

Fri 4 May 2007:  In the evening I collected the car after they had kept it for four days.  Simon told me that a temporary repair had been done to the fuel leak, using putty, and the car was now "safe to drive." A replacement “return pipe” had been ordered as they stated that they had discovered a “hairline crack” after four days of investigation. As soon as the part was delivered they promised to repair it immediately.

Tue 8 May 2007:  I rang Excel. The part had "not arrived."

Wed 9 May 2007:  I rang Excel. The part had "not arrived."

Thu 10 May 2007:  I rang Excel. The part had "not arrived." I asked what the part was, but they didn’t know. I asked where it was coming from, but they didn’t know. They were just as evasive when I asked who they used for air-conditioning repairs.

Fri 11 May 2007:  At 9.40 am I rang Excel. They told me to ring back at 10.30 am. At 10.30 I rang. Someone said, “I’ll ring you back at 12 o’clock” then hung up quickly before I could reply. At 1.15 pm I gave up waiting and rang Excel. They told me the part had arrived (but didn’t know what it was or where it had been supplied from).

Mon 14 May 2007:  I left the car at Excel from 9.30 am until 5.30 pm. When I went to collect it, Simon told me the fuel leak was fixed, but the air-conditioning would need to be done on another occasion. I asked for details of the repair. A second member of the staff approached and told me there had been no smell of fuel so there was nothing wrong and no repair had been needed. Then a third man told me they had not managed to find the source of the problem yet.  I told them that I intended to book the car into another garage and send them the bill. They said that it would not be paid. I mentioned referring the matter to the Trading Standards Department and Simon told me to leave the premises and that “we don’t want to see you or your car again”

Wed 16 May 2007:  At 10.30 am I took the car to the excellent Manor Garage in Dewsbury (01924 469906). They could find no evidence of the alleged temporary repair with putty.  They replaced a fuel pump seal and recharged the air-conditioning system. They told me the temperature gauge was not working correctly; and settings had been altered to hide this, keeping the engine artificially cool. I was warned that this may increase fuel consumption and possibly cause damage to the engine in winter conditions. After only seven hours at Manor Garage the smell of fuel has gone, the air-conditioning works perfectly and we have a bill for £133.21. We are sending this to Excel, with a request that they re-imburse us. Manor Garage informed us that, although the risk of an explosion was relatively small, there had been a very real danger of the occupants of the car being overcome with petrol fumes.  In the case of the driver, the consequences of this happening on, for example, a motorway are frighteningly obvious.

Fri 1 Jun 2007:  Manor Garage performed tests on the cooling system.  It was evident that fan settings had been adjusted to conceal a fault in a component of the temperature gauge. The result was the engine running cold, consuming extra fuel. They reset the system and the car now runs correctly, although the temperature gauge requires a new part. This cost us another £47, and Manor will be providing a written quote for the remaining work. This will also be forwarded to Excel for reimbursement.

Thu 7 Jun 2007:  The estimate for the final repairs to the temperature gauge arrived. We have sent a recorded delivery letter to Excel, demanding payment of £264.89 by Monday 18th June. We have also informed the local Trading Standards Department and asked them to look into Excel's trading practices. If this payment is not received by 18th June we will issue a claim in the County Court.

Sat 9 Jun 2007:  The recorded delivery letter was returned to us marked "refused".  This will be preserved as evidence in the Court hearing. It is obvious that this unscrupulous firm have had experience of this kind of thing before!

Sun 10 Jun 2007:  At 8.30 pm I put another copy of the above letter through the letterbox of the showroom. In law, pretending they haven't received or read the letter is no defence. If I do not receive payment by 18th June, I will lodge a County Court claim the next morning.

Mon 18 Jun 2007: The deadline for payment has passed, and no payment has been received. The Trading Standards Department have written to us and allocated a reference number to the case. Paperwork is being prepared for the County Court.

Mon 2 Jul 2007:  The case was allocated a number at Northampton County Court.  For this we had to pay another £30.00, which is added to the total owed, bringing it up to £294.89.  The Court will serve the documents on Excel in the next few days. They have until 22nd July to respond.

Sun 22 Jul 2007:  The car dealer has failed to respond to the Court by the deadline.

Wed 25 Jul 2007:  We have requested the Court to enter judgement by default.

Thu 26 Jul 2007:  The Court has entered judgement in our favour.  If the garage fail to pay our £294.89 we will apply for a Warrant of Execution, enabling bailliffs to enter their premises and seize goods to be sold to raise our money.

Fri 10 Aug 2007:  The Court sent Excel's copy of the Judgement to us as Excel had returned it to the Court with no explanation.

Sat 11 Aug 2007: I rang Excel and asked about Clayton Car Sales, as their name was on the receipt when we bought the car. They claimed to have "never heard of them - they're nothing to do with us". I arranged for the Court papers to be re-served under the name of Excel.

Mon 20 Aug 2007:  Just for curiosity I rang and asked to speak to the manager of Clayton Car Sales. The person who answered claimed to be a valeter and said that if I left my number, the manager would ring me back! So they HAVE heard of Clayton Car Sales.

Fri 24 Aug 2007:  I did the decent thing, before sending the bailiffs in. I rang and spoke to Simon, who obviously had a customer with him as he was very polite. I pointed out that judgement had been awarded, and said that I expected to receive the money by next Friday 31st August or I would apply for a Warrant of Execution. He made a note of my phone number and promised that Chris would ring me back later. (He didn't!)

Sat 22 Sep 2007:  We have applied for a WARRANT OF EXECUTION which, if granted, will enable bailiffs to enter Excel's premises to seize cash or goods to be sold to pay us. This has cost us another £55.00, bring the total they owe us to £349.89.  I have also written to the Trading Standards Department to update them. No doubt they will now take action of their own.

Mon 24 Sep 2007:  A WARRANT OF EXECUTION has been issued at Dewsbury County Court. The bailiffs will shortly visit Excel's premises.

Wed 26 Sep 2007:  The TRADING STANDARDS SERVICE wrote to us to confirm they are already investigating this business and would like more information from the public. If you have dealt with Excel or Clayton Car Sales, please contact us.

Thu 27 Dec 2007:  The BAILIFF called, but "could not make contact with the debtor."

Wed 6 Feb 2008: The BAILIFF called again at 11.40 am, but "could not make contact with the debtor".

Thu 28 Feb 2008:  A letter arrived from Dewsbury County Court. The BAILIFF has finally contacted the owner and levied goods which will be removed and sold at auction to pay us what is owed.

Fri 14 Mar 2008:  The BAILIFF called at the premises at 12.00 noon to remove cars, but was "unable to make contact with the debtor".

Tue 18 Mar 2008:  A woman by the name of EILEEN HAYES has applied to the Court to have judgment set aside because "CLAYTON CAR SALES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY COMPANY NAMELY "SCOOTERS GARAGE". I WOULD LIKE ALL MY COSTS FOR THIS CASE REFUNDING." She has paid the Court £75.00 for this, and the hearing has been set for Wednesday 9th April 2008 at 11.00 am.

Wed 9 Apr 2008: THE COURT HEARING.  We arrived at Dewsbury County Court about 15 minutes before the hearing, listed on the board as "M. v CLAYTON".  We noticed that another hearing was scheduled in Court at the same time under the heading "MRS X v EXCEL". (Mrs X is not her real name, but we will call her that to protect her identity). Mrs X had a very similar (but more expensive) story to tell, and EILEEN HAYES (who appears to be the common-law wife of Chris, the boss!) had also applied to have this judgment set aside because "EXCEL MOTORS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY COMPANY NAMELY "SCOOTERS GARAGE". I WOULD LIKE ALL MY COSTS FOR THIS CASE REFUNDING". She had paid another £75.00 for this, so this morning has cost her £150.00. We were surprised when no one from Excel/Clayton/Scooters Garage turned up. The hearings proceeded and both applications were rejected. It would appear that Chris Christoforou has made a statement for Mrs X's case that contradicts Eileen Hayes' claim to own the business. Therefore the Judge was not at all surprised by their failure to attend, and the bailiffs will now continue their attempts to remove vehicles from the premises. Mrs X has sent us her story to include on this website. Click here to see it.

Sat 19 Apr 2008: REPOSSESSION of two cars (a VW Polo and a Skoda Octavia) has taken place, one for us and one for Mrs X's claim. But now somebody called PAUL FROST of Cleckheaton Gearbox & Clutch Centre  (Unit 3 Valley Road, Cleckheaton, BD19 3LA - 01274 865333 or 07714 293067) has claimed to the Court that he owns the vehicles and wants them back! He reckons they were at Excel on a "sale or return" basis. He has produced to the Court sales invoices showing that he bought the cars from PREMIER MOTOR AUCTIONS LTD of Leeds.

We found something interesting about the Cleckheaton Gearbox and Clutch Centre on another website. Click HERE to see it.

Mon 21 Apr 2008: PREMIER MOTOR AUCTIONS is a reputable organisation, so we contacted them and were told that they did indeed sell these two cars, but NOT to PAUL FROST. We mentioned who we thought had bought them and our suspicions were confirmed. They sold the cars to EILEEN HAYES.  If this is true, then the sales invoices in the name of Paul Frost can not be genuine. We have informed Mrs X and the Court of this, and the District Judge will decide what happens next.

Wed 23 Apr 2008:  The Court has set a hearing for Tuesday 13th May at the same time as Mrs X's case will be heard.

Fri 9 May 2008: The Trading Standards Department have been in touch and asked us to supply them with full details of our case. We sent them a copy of this page. They are actively investigating this business with a view to taking action of their own.

Tue 13 May 2008: THE COURT HEARING.  We were called in to Court with Mrs X. The Judge simply asked us our names, and whether we had yet been paid, then turned his attention to Chris Christoforou for the rest of the hearing. In brief, the Judge asked why Chris Christoforou was there instead of Paul Frost who had been summoned but had not appeared. Chris answered that Paul was on holiday, to which the Judge replied, "I know - he's in Spain." The Judge asked Chris who owned the business. Chris claimed he worked for Eileen Hayes and did not own the business. The Judge then pointed out that he had a copy of a statement given under caution to the Trading Standards Department in which Chris had claimed to own the business. The Judge asked what his relationship with Eileen Hayes was. He asked him directly, "Is she your common-law wife?" to which he replied "No." The Judge asked again and Chris said, "She's my ex-common-law wife." Chris stated that Paul Frost had provided documents proving the cars belonged to himself, and not Chris Christoforou or Eileen Hayes. The judge said he believed these to be forged and it was Paul Frost's responsibility to appear in Court to justify the claim. Chris challenged this and the judge replied "I don't believe you."  The Judge pointed out that Paul Frost could have applied for an adjournment, or changed his holiday. He ordered that the seized cars be sold at auction and that costs for today's hearing be paid by Paul Frost. At this point Chris started questioning the Judge who raised his voice to say, "Mr Christoforou - you have already lost this case!"  There are now no more appeals or technicalities that can be applied. The case is over and we have won. Chris Christoforou has lost two Court fees, each of £75 and two cars from his forecourt, which we estimate to have been worth over £5,000.00 to him. We will now await the proceeds of the auction. Justice has been done today.

Wed 14 May 2008: Chris Christoforou turned up at the Court begging for the return of the repossessed cars. He was told to pay all he owed to prevent the cars going to auction.

Fri 16 May 2008: HE PAID UP!  Yes, Chris Christoforou finally caved in and admitted defeat. He went to the Court and paid - in cash - our £349.89, Mrs X's claim of nearly £600 and all the Court and baliff's charges. This is a total figure in excess of ONE THOUSAND POUNDS, on top of the £150 he wasted for the hearing on 9th April. The Court will issue cheques to Mrs X and ourselves in the next few days. I bet he wishes he had simply fixed our fuel seal and air-conditioning last year!

Sat 31 May 2008: THE CHEQUE ARRIVED from the County Court. Now all that remains is to cash the cheque and arrange a celebration with Mrs X. Chris Christoforou is not invited!

If you think our story is shocking, wait until you see what this outfit did to Mrs X (not her real name). They took her old car in part exchange and sold her an illegally dangerous car with a leaking petrol tank that had to be written off. Click this link to read about it: