LuckyWelshchap

I don't I'm afraid.
It's one I was helping out with so will be respecting privacy etc.

It is however exactly as I've said (I'll add that the case/claim was because of undue delay by the main dealers in repairing it and consequential losses).
The relevant part of the judgement is the exact wording.

TallRider

Hmmm, that is unusual. Is it a binding decision? Or just a county court judgment?

And just FYI, if it's been decided in open court (which I imagine it has) it's in the public domain and no privacy exists.

LuckyWelshchap

I like that expression, "just" a county court judgement
(I know what you mean, I'm just putting another slant on it, given that the claimant, and me of course, have a er.... low opinion of that particular decision).

I realise that it's public domain but in fairness it's not proper for me to draw attention to someone else's problem.

I'm about to pm you.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Unless I am reading this wrong the question posed in he thread title is very misleading.

This case seems to me to be far more to do with who 'owns' the warranty than the car. The part of the sum up mentioning the RK is not quite correct and somewhat irrelevant.

Anyway in my experience having the owner and RK as separate people always leads to trouble especially with insurance companies in the event of a claim.

Keep it simple is my motto!