Lexmanic

The after market warranty is irrelevant. Your legal rights are stronger meaning the Dealer IS responsible under the Sale of Goods Act (no matter what they might claim) Failure after 1 month means it was clearly "not fit for purpose" Insist they pay for the repair otherwise you'll sue AND report them to Trading Standards for failing to meet their legal obligations

I understand the reflectors need to be HID compliant to be legal

Interesting. Were the HID lights illegal at the time of fitting or is this a recent development?

Driving a P reg Gold LS 400 If so you should be ashamed, When did you last wash it? a year ago at least. It was filthy with ingrained dirt covered in finger marks. It also had a dent & scrape visible along the rear off-side but like all LS's you could'nt hear the engine ticking over. Sell it to a Lexus fan who'll put it right. cos you don't appreciate it one bit. Off with his head I say whoever you are

Good luck Many moons ago I got offered a job in the States working for very old New England money & turned it down. Regretted just a Tad ever since

None use causes rubber cambelt, tyres etc to deteriorate & lose their flexibility. If its been parked for any length such as years I suggest whether due or not BOTH will need changed for peace of mind.

Wheelspin! what about the TC?

And to you :hohoho:

Not to me, best of luck to the bloke I say. If he makes a few bob on what's a good car sobeit. Mind you I'd knock him down a bit because of the brief MOT AND I'd certainly have it inspected by the AA/RAC before buying

Agreed and with no advisories and it should have plenty of tax. Pretty low of him to buy a car, do nothing to it and then sell it at such a big mark up Why?

Also lying to the cops was not a good idea & should it go to court will almost certainly be mentioned in evidence

This lying sod deserves to be punished and when his insurers find that he knowingly left the scene of the accident without reporting it or notifying the victim his premiums will rocket or they may even cancel his insurance as he's what's known as a 'moral risk'

Also its important that you write & insist that they keep the CCTV footage as you will require it to establish who collided with your car. If after that they destroy the footage they WILL have committed a criminal offence namely 'Perverting the Course of Justice' and they themselves can be held liable for your damages. Suggest you deliver the letter by hand & have someone sign for it

Why would they be concerned that you would sue them.............unless it was one of their vehicles or employees who caused the damage. Incidentally the disclaimer is invalid where their own employees negligence is concerned

I agree name calling IS against the rules but then so is trying to make another member feel small cos they got booked speeding. PS I've spoken to the chap & know the circumstances of his "speeding" and it could have happened to anyone driving an LS for the 1st time (accept those who are perfect of course)

AND I bet you've never had an accident but have seen plenty Pompous bugger If you think giving my opinion is pompous then tough! And no I have never had a fault accident, more by luck than judgement probably. And yes, I have seen an awful lot of accidents......SOCU always need plenty of photographs and in my early career I saw the results that would turn your stomach in a second, probably why I was always (and hopefully still am) very aware of the results of innapropriate speed and lack of attention whilst driving. @ David, The motorway in question was the M20, and it was a bridge camera before the ACPO recommendations for speed conviction buffer limits. Criticising another member because they fell foul of the cash making speed camera IS pompous. He asked for advice not to being slagged off be another member. A gentleman wouldn't do it and that's my opnion

AND I bet you've never had an accident but have seen plenty Pompous bugger

As they are visible and distract from the cars image,quality etc I think you do have a claim. How they rectify it will be upto them, repaint, replacement calliper, who knows until you make the claim On word of warning is you use a pressure washer as they could with good reason that that is the reason for the loss of paint

I'm not trying to prove anything I'm having a discussion about a subject that some may know little of, the so called right claimed by some no. plate makers to hold your personal details, which is unlawful. What are you doing? apart from being snotty that is

I can assure you Halfords did photocopy the docs & kept them for their records. However they were threatened with legal action for breaching the DPA and as a result required to return the documents to the data subject without retaining their details other than the identifying numbers on the said docs Clearly they have upgraded their systems allowing them direct communication with the DVLA

I shouldn't count on it mate. As they have in the past did they insist on photocopying any of your documents "for their records" :megaangry: cos if so they shouldn't as they have no secure storage for your data AND all they need do is record the unique document numbers that your V5 & DL contain . They certainly don't need copies

Happens in October 2014

Thanks for your concern, Lexmanic. I said NO ADVERTISING, for example the name of the dealer that supplied the car. My plates were made by HALFORDS and all that is required by law is printed in small discrete grey letters. Look closely at the lettering below the '4' in my Mk 3's plate. All very elegant, in my view. DSC08411.jpg Great & it is elegant as you say but very difficult to see let alone read so you might still get a stop. Just my opinion anyway

Car looks great BUT I would point out that these days & for obvious reasons number plates MUST (by law) show who produced them. If they don't the cops could give you a pull & issue you with a notice to get them changed........sorry

100 mph or over will mean attending court in person