J
*JO*
Guest
ah well done for getting your money back. your lucky he turned up to.
really glad you stuck to your guns and sorted it
xxx
really glad you stuck to your guns and sorted it
xxx
DNA Cars - USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!
- Thread starter Starlet_Sam
- Start date
Starlet_Sam
Moderator, Regional Area Reps Supervisor & Gay Car
ah well done for getting your money back. your lucky he turned up to.
really glad you stuck to your guns and sorted it
xxx
It wouldn't have mattered if he hadn't turned up, they would have made a decision without him and he would have been sent the judgement in the post.
I can't believe you're going to have to go back to court. That guy has zero sense.
Anyway, after all the work you had to put in to that case you deserved the result. It's a shame it went so far, we could have had that Mazda built by now!
To everyone else, steer well clear. It's really not worth the hassle.
Anyway, after all the work you had to put in to that case you deserved the result. It's a shame it went so far, we could have had that Mazda built by now!
To everyone else, steer well clear. It's really not worth the hassle.
dnacars
Member +
Wow, looks good Sam! But I think you have chosen to miss out an awful lot of stuff, so if you have to resort to having a go then It is only fair that I should put up the bits you have missed out and let others make up there own minds.
So lets start.
When you placed your order you were told that it would take time to find you what you wanted in Japan right from the start as specific mods and other thing take time to find.
As for saying that I say a lot of our cars are my wife’s then I would have a look on djcc member section where you can see my wife’s cars….
We had evidence to show that you had worked on the car and not just covered it up, just because we didn’t win the case does not mean that you didn’t work on the car.
In court the other stuff that you alleged was not taken into account and a judgement was not made on this. You won the case because the car was mis-sold. The car should have had coilovers and a performance exhaust on it, which we should have checked, and we didn’t. We held up our hands on this and we did offer you at the time to put these issues right. We offered to sort out the alleged paint issues, put a HKS exhaust on for you and give you a set of Cusco coilovers, you can’t get fairer than that.
Now the paint job
Well the paint coming off under the arches was done by driving the car back the paint had not had time to hardened by the looks of it, for the rest of it I would say maybe if you cleaned it as there is this thing call dirt, which makes white paint, have patches which with a cleaning shampoo it will remove it.
And the car is sat outside my house if anyone wants to look at it…
The court
We only did not refund your money because we where advised by Trading Standards that we had a case and these are suppose to be the people that you should turn to in cases like this, we know now that this is not accurate!!!
In court you have that bit right the judge did say;
‘Mr. Davis, you don't seem to have much of a defence. In fact, you don't have a defence at all’
But you missed out the bit in front of it.
‘Trading Standards have given you the wrong advice and do not know the law, which I’m afraid Mr. Davis, you don't seem to have much of a defence. In fact, you don't have a defence at all.’
And as said before this was only on mis-selling the car and nothing else.
Now in court, if what you are saying in your words are true
i.e.
- To conclude, it is my opinion (Yes Jonathan, my OPINION so nothing libellous here) that DNA Cars proprietor Jonathan Davis of Southampton is a chancer and if he can get away with it a cheat. He tries to bully people into submission, he tried it with me and others have come forward to me with their stories. He won't listen to any laws unless he thinks they are in his favour and he doesn't learn from his mistakes.
I would never ever use him again, and if he had a part I desperately needed I would scrap my car before I bought it off him. If you have a deposit with him, GET IT BACK!
then the district judge would have given me a CCJ, BUT he said that I have been truthful and honest in all of the evidence that was before him and it would be unfair to give me a CCJ, the only way that he would give me one is if I did not pay you so I think that says it all.
One thing as well as people keep on going on about the weather on the day, your evidence was from Southampton to Stafford, this is a big area and the evidence that we put up was from Southampton only please look for yourself.
This is the only thing I am going to write about this as I am not going to waste my time but I did need to respond just so people know, and as I said no CCJ speaks for itself.
JOHN
So lets start.
When you placed your order you were told that it would take time to find you what you wanted in Japan right from the start as specific mods and other thing take time to find.
As for saying that I say a lot of our cars are my wife’s then I would have a look on djcc member section where you can see my wife’s cars….
We had evidence to show that you had worked on the car and not just covered it up, just because we didn’t win the case does not mean that you didn’t work on the car.
In court the other stuff that you alleged was not taken into account and a judgement was not made on this. You won the case because the car was mis-sold. The car should have had coilovers and a performance exhaust on it, which we should have checked, and we didn’t. We held up our hands on this and we did offer you at the time to put these issues right. We offered to sort out the alleged paint issues, put a HKS exhaust on for you and give you a set of Cusco coilovers, you can’t get fairer than that.
Now the paint job
Well the paint coming off under the arches was done by driving the car back the paint had not had time to hardened by the looks of it, for the rest of it I would say maybe if you cleaned it as there is this thing call dirt, which makes white paint, have patches which with a cleaning shampoo it will remove it.
And the car is sat outside my house if anyone wants to look at it…
The court
We only did not refund your money because we where advised by Trading Standards that we had a case and these are suppose to be the people that you should turn to in cases like this, we know now that this is not accurate!!!
In court you have that bit right the judge did say;
‘Mr. Davis, you don't seem to have much of a defence. In fact, you don't have a defence at all’
But you missed out the bit in front of it.
‘Trading Standards have given you the wrong advice and do not know the law, which I’m afraid Mr. Davis, you don't seem to have much of a defence. In fact, you don't have a defence at all.’
And as said before this was only on mis-selling the car and nothing else.
Now in court, if what you are saying in your words are true
i.e.
- To conclude, it is my opinion (Yes Jonathan, my OPINION so nothing libellous here) that DNA Cars proprietor Jonathan Davis of Southampton is a chancer and if he can get away with it a cheat. He tries to bully people into submission, he tried it with me and others have come forward to me with their stories. He won't listen to any laws unless he thinks they are in his favour and he doesn't learn from his mistakes.
I would never ever use him again, and if he had a part I desperately needed I would scrap my car before I bought it off him. If you have a deposit with him, GET IT BACK!
then the district judge would have given me a CCJ, BUT he said that I have been truthful and honest in all of the evidence that was before him and it would be unfair to give me a CCJ, the only way that he would give me one is if I did not pay you so I think that says it all.
One thing as well as people keep on going on about the weather on the day, your evidence was from Southampton to Stafford, this is a big area and the evidence that we put up was from Southampton only please look for yourself.
This is the only thing I am going to write about this as I am not going to waste my time but I did need to respond just so people know, and as I said no CCJ speaks for itself.
JOHN
Starlet_Sam
Moderator, Regional Area Reps Supervisor & Gay Car
Of course, it is only fair.
Yes, that's why I didn't make a huge point of it. The cars that were forthcoming within that time were still few and far between. The ones you did send for consideration had sod all details.
I have seen all your "evidence" and it is all crap. When you presented said "evidence" to the Judge he commented that it is all explained perfectly well in my case with evidence to back it up.
The other stuff wasn't taken into consideration because it was immaterial as soon as you admitted that the car wasn't as sold. Why carry on with a case when you had lost already? The Judge isn't stupid enough to waste his time doing that.
You could get fairer than that, you could have fixed all the problems that were consistant with your shoddy work.
It was only causing it if the car had been dirty before painting! It was rough to the touch, the paint not dirt. Streetech on this site can confirm this.
They provided you with accurate documentation. I know this because you submitted it with your "evidence" and I in turn actually read it and it turned into evidence against you. Oh by the way, I never got round to thanking you for that!
See above. The chances are that you told Trading Standards the same guff as you told the court, hence they gave you faulty advice. It's a great get out clause though, blaming others for your own doings.
And as I said, only because it would have been a waste of valuable BBQ time to carry on proving you wrong.
WRONG! The Judge cannot give you a CCJ. You only get a CCJ if you fail to satisfy the Courts order before the determined date. If it wasn't for me giving you some goodwill time then you wouldn't have done this and you would have that CCJ. If you had been truthful and honest in all your evidence then I MUST have lied, meaning you would have won. What the Judge actually said is that he didn't think there were any malicious intentions in your actions. Ignorance isn't innocence.
The weather on the day was a potentially big factor due to rain hiding blemishes. Your evidence was from an unnreliable source (this can be proven by looking at all the different data for Southampton on the site). My evidence wasn't just for Southampton to Stafford. It was for specific areas with times attached to them. Not only that but it was from a highly reliable source. The source for those don't know is Weather Quest Ltd. They provide weather data for insurance claims and companies that need very accurate historical data and forecasts.
Your "evidence" conveniently said there had been no rain all day until 6pm. Would have great for you if that were true. My accurate data said it rained very shortly before I got there, hence a wet car. My claim never said it was raining while I was there, just that the car was wet.
Good, I'm glad that you won't waste your time defending the case again, you can only lose. Now that Mikey has come forward saying he had problems too I don't think people will have to look too deeply into who's telling the truth.
The CCJ doesn't speak for itself. Well OK, it does. It says that if you take DNA Cars to Court and you win, then they will probably pay up. However, the fact that I took you to Court and WON not only speaks, but shouts for itself. It well and truely drowns out your lack off a CCJ.
Last edited:
Elaine
Lifer
Really great news, this has been a long drawn out process for you and I pleased you got a good result.
Having seen first hand some of the cars that DNA has imported and sold its fair to say people have not received what they were expecting.
It’s good that you have spoken up and given your thoughts as so many don’t feel they are able to do so.
I do hope that going forward people will take onboard the feedback you have given and judge for themselves if they are willing to take the risk and end up owning a car that is missing half its spec list or has had major crash damage that has been poorly covered up!
Having seen first hand some of the cars that DNA has imported and sold its fair to say people have not received what they were expecting.
It’s good that you have spoken up and given your thoughts as so many don’t feel they are able to do so.
I do hope that going forward people will take onboard the feedback you have given and judge for themselves if they are willing to take the risk and end up owning a car that is missing half its spec list or has had major crash damage that has been poorly covered up!
gv1.3
Admin
The "official" TGTT comment on this is -
TGTT was contacted by a member of the forum who had purchased a car from a TGTT trader. We gathered the facts from both parties and it was clear that the stories were very different. The member advised that the trader would not budge and that he was going to have to take legal action. At this point we advised that there was nothing further we could do until a legal decision had been made.
Once the case was over the TGTT staff looked at the outcome and made a decision not to renew the traders position for reasons of poor customer service.
We take reports of trader issues VERY seriously and have removed several traders in the past from TGTT. It is concerning to hear another member say he had problems with this trader, ultimately if you dont tell us about these problems there is nothing we can do about it.
Finally I would like to congratulate Sam for acting professionally throughout this situation and keeping us informed at all times. I cannot fault Sam in any way for the way he handled this situation. It is pretty obvious from the judges order who was at fault here and we cannot take the risk that another member might purchase a car from DNA cars and might have to endure a court visit and lengthy preparation to get customer service from a trader, that is not acceptable.
TGTT was contacted by a member of the forum who had purchased a car from a TGTT trader. We gathered the facts from both parties and it was clear that the stories were very different. The member advised that the trader would not budge and that he was going to have to take legal action. At this point we advised that there was nothing further we could do until a legal decision had been made.
Once the case was over the TGTT staff looked at the outcome and made a decision not to renew the traders position for reasons of poor customer service.
We take reports of trader issues VERY seriously and have removed several traders in the past from TGTT. It is concerning to hear another member say he had problems with this trader, ultimately if you dont tell us about these problems there is nothing we can do about it.
Finally I would like to congratulate Sam for acting professionally throughout this situation and keeping us informed at all times. I cannot fault Sam in any way for the way he handled this situation. It is pretty obvious from the judges order who was at fault here and we cannot take the risk that another member might purchase a car from DNA cars and might have to endure a court visit and lengthy preparation to get customer service from a trader, that is not acceptable.
Starlet_Sam
Moderator, Regional Area Reps Supervisor & Gay Car
I would like to add to what Dylan said to the effect that, as much as I would have loved to, I was not included in the "TGTT Staff" that decided on his fate. That would have been biased and counter productive.
Glad everything is sorted now though, minus the arches, as must have been rather stressful.
At one point I was actually looking at contact DNA cars about the same MX5 until I heard Sam was after it, at which point I left it to Sam to buy.
Kind of feel bad knowing what's happened since, but unlike Sam I wouldn't of had the confidence or the patience to follow up the problems and resolve the matter (in which case problems with the trader that have now surfaced may not have come to light, or at least taken longer to do so)
Will stop waffling though, glad it's done and dusted so to speak
At one point I was actually looking at contact DNA cars about the same MX5 until I heard Sam was after it, at which point I left it to Sam to buy.
Kind of feel bad knowing what's happened since, but unlike Sam I wouldn't of had the confidence or the patience to follow up the problems and resolve the matter (in which case problems with the trader that have now surfaced may not have come to light, or at least taken longer to do so)
Will stop waffling though, glad it's done and dusted so to speak
legalpickle
Banned
DNA Cars...
Hi All,
I am the one who assisted Sam with his court claim against DNA Cars. I am a VERY active member on CAG, and VERY well experienced in consumer & contract law.
I saw every document involved, drafted a large amount of Sam's documents and proofed all of Sam's documents.
1. John: A CCJ is given only when a Defendant does not respond to a court claim [in which case the Defendant will have 1 month to pay and have it removed, otherwise it remains on the Defendant's record for 6 years, even if paid - in which case it would be marked as Satisfied] OR when a Defendant does not comply with a court order. Saying that you were in the right or at least a little bit in the right because you didn't get a CCJ is complete utter bullshit! No losing party gets a CCJ following a hearing, only when and if they don't comply with a court order!
2. John: You seem to love blaming Trading Standards. As Sam advised you numerous times, the advice given is only as good as the information supplied. The Trading Standards information sheet that you attached to your claim - downloaded from their website, and we put the link in Sam's responses - was generic. It doesn't apply to every vehicle case. It also doesn't include all information. It's obvious that IF you spoke to them - which considering you lied in other places I doubt - you didn't give them all the information, in which case any idiot would have told you that you're in the wrong! Most likely you read what you wanted from their generic information sheet.
3. John: It has come to my attention that you seem to say with every piece of junk you sell - and several others who will hopefully post up here have approached Sam about the complete junk you sell - was your wife's car. Now I very much doubt this, because any normal person who knows anything about cars wouldn't let their better half in a car till they had checked it out thoroughly, unless she was their worse half! Sorry, I forgot for a second, you're not a normal person! I know next to nothing about cars, but if I had a wife or girlfriend, I wouldn't let her touch a car till I had one of my mates who knows about cars check it out thoroughly! Especially if I had kids!
4. John: You had zilch evidence that Sam worked on the car. From what I heard the District Judge said that you had absolutely no evidence, and I saw you so-called "evidence", all it was were assumptions based on Sam's innocence as a newbie to the court procedure, and you taking Sam's words out of context! Had you copied the WHOLE threads, rather than just posts here and there, you would have seen that conclusively, but you were blind to the thought that you could be wrong!
5. John: I have been in many court hearings. I personally am responsible for over 500 court claims being issued - excluding those I have helped on CAG - and have been in over 100 small claims hearings. I know VERY well how they go. The second a Deputy District or District Judge finds a basis to support one side conclusively, unless there is a valid defence against that side, no further claims are gone through. It's pointless and a complete waste of time.
Don't forget that with small claims track hearings the courts overbook the hearings. This is because a large amount settle in the days before the hearing, only one side shows up - which means the claim is normally over very quickly, neither party shows up or all that is needed is approval for an Application by Consent. All these are over very quickly. But quite often, the court overbooks too much, so the District Judge's are in a rush to finish as many hearings as possible. Also, the earlier they finish their morning sessions, the sooner they get off for lunch, as unless they're hearing Applications, the next sitting is at 2pm [some Applications on Notice are heard at 12pm].
Also, before you went into the courtroom, the District Judge would have read most of the papers. Had he seen something that stood out as being a valid defence, he would have raised it himself - and you could have raised it! - so obviously, all this means is that the District Judge realized you didn't have a cat's chance in hell of winning!
6. John: You did a crap job on the paint the first time round and took forever over it! Why should Sam let you have another go, wasting time AND money? He shouldn't. Actually, Sam was willing to let you have another go, providing you confirm that if it is still messed up, you will take the piece of crap back and refund him - which is entirely reasonable and you refused!
7. John: If the paint didn't have time to dry - after several months - then it was a real crap job with crap paint. You're talking out of your rear end, again!
8. John: Actually, your "evidence" for weather was from a site that uses information from personal weather meters - I could buy one for £99 and set it up right outside my window. If I recall correctly there were 3 other readings for Southampton/Totton on the same day, same times, that conflicted with yours. And the information from Weatherquest - a company with a heck of a lot of experience in providing professional information for Personal Injury and insurance claims for some of the biggest insurance companies, law firms and Bar Chambers in the country - showed your "evidence" was incorrect.
John,
As I've said above, I've personally been responsible for over 500 court claims being issued. I've got 99.5% success rate [everybody loses the odd few with that sort of experience] and know what I'm doing.
I'm strict in the way I do things, but am well respected in CAG because I have saved some lives - almost literally. I get an average of 3 PM's a week on CAG pointing me to threads asking for my help, and need to turn most of them away I am so busy. I know my stuff.
In all my claims I have very rarely seen a defence that lies as much as yours did. I'm going to be having the pleasure of helping Sam sue your ass for the arches which you haven't returned. I suggest you settle in full now, because otherwise you WILL lose!
Oh, by the way, congratulations on the birth, I hope they don't turn out anything like you - for the sake of the human race!
legalpickle
Hi All,
I am the one who assisted Sam with his court claim against DNA Cars. I am a VERY active member on CAG, and VERY well experienced in consumer & contract law.
I saw every document involved, drafted a large amount of Sam's documents and proofed all of Sam's documents.
1. John: A CCJ is given only when a Defendant does not respond to a court claim [in which case the Defendant will have 1 month to pay and have it removed, otherwise it remains on the Defendant's record for 6 years, even if paid - in which case it would be marked as Satisfied] OR when a Defendant does not comply with a court order. Saying that you were in the right or at least a little bit in the right because you didn't get a CCJ is complete utter bullshit! No losing party gets a CCJ following a hearing, only when and if they don't comply with a court order!
2. John: You seem to love blaming Trading Standards. As Sam advised you numerous times, the advice given is only as good as the information supplied. The Trading Standards information sheet that you attached to your claim - downloaded from their website, and we put the link in Sam's responses - was generic. It doesn't apply to every vehicle case. It also doesn't include all information. It's obvious that IF you spoke to them - which considering you lied in other places I doubt - you didn't give them all the information, in which case any idiot would have told you that you're in the wrong! Most likely you read what you wanted from their generic information sheet.
3. John: It has come to my attention that you seem to say with every piece of junk you sell - and several others who will hopefully post up here have approached Sam about the complete junk you sell - was your wife's car. Now I very much doubt this, because any normal person who knows anything about cars wouldn't let their better half in a car till they had checked it out thoroughly, unless she was their worse half! Sorry, I forgot for a second, you're not a normal person! I know next to nothing about cars, but if I had a wife or girlfriend, I wouldn't let her touch a car till I had one of my mates who knows about cars check it out thoroughly! Especially if I had kids!
4. John: You had zilch evidence that Sam worked on the car. From what I heard the District Judge said that you had absolutely no evidence, and I saw you so-called "evidence", all it was were assumptions based on Sam's innocence as a newbie to the court procedure, and you taking Sam's words out of context! Had you copied the WHOLE threads, rather than just posts here and there, you would have seen that conclusively, but you were blind to the thought that you could be wrong!
5. John: I have been in many court hearings. I personally am responsible for over 500 court claims being issued - excluding those I have helped on CAG - and have been in over 100 small claims hearings. I know VERY well how they go. The second a Deputy District or District Judge finds a basis to support one side conclusively, unless there is a valid defence against that side, no further claims are gone through. It's pointless and a complete waste of time.
Don't forget that with small claims track hearings the courts overbook the hearings. This is because a large amount settle in the days before the hearing, only one side shows up - which means the claim is normally over very quickly, neither party shows up or all that is needed is approval for an Application by Consent. All these are over very quickly. But quite often, the court overbooks too much, so the District Judge's are in a rush to finish as many hearings as possible. Also, the earlier they finish their morning sessions, the sooner they get off for lunch, as unless they're hearing Applications, the next sitting is at 2pm [some Applications on Notice are heard at 12pm].
Also, before you went into the courtroom, the District Judge would have read most of the papers. Had he seen something that stood out as being a valid defence, he would have raised it himself - and you could have raised it! - so obviously, all this means is that the District Judge realized you didn't have a cat's chance in hell of winning!
6. John: You did a crap job on the paint the first time round and took forever over it! Why should Sam let you have another go, wasting time AND money? He shouldn't. Actually, Sam was willing to let you have another go, providing you confirm that if it is still messed up, you will take the piece of crap back and refund him - which is entirely reasonable and you refused!
7. John: If the paint didn't have time to dry - after several months - then it was a real crap job with crap paint. You're talking out of your rear end, again!
8. John: Actually, your "evidence" for weather was from a site that uses information from personal weather meters - I could buy one for £99 and set it up right outside my window. If I recall correctly there were 3 other readings for Southampton/Totton on the same day, same times, that conflicted with yours. And the information from Weatherquest - a company with a heck of a lot of experience in providing professional information for Personal Injury and insurance claims for some of the biggest insurance companies, law firms and Bar Chambers in the country - showed your "evidence" was incorrect.
John,
As I've said above, I've personally been responsible for over 500 court claims being issued. I've got 99.5% success rate [everybody loses the odd few with that sort of experience] and know what I'm doing.
I'm strict in the way I do things, but am well respected in CAG because I have saved some lives - almost literally. I get an average of 3 PM's a week on CAG pointing me to threads asking for my help, and need to turn most of them away I am so busy. I know my stuff.
In all my claims I have very rarely seen a defence that lies as much as yours did. I'm going to be having the pleasure of helping Sam sue your ass for the arches which you haven't returned. I suggest you settle in full now, because otherwise you WILL lose!
Oh, by the way, congratulations on the birth, I hope they don't turn out anything like you - for the sake of the human race!
legalpickle
Great "Old" news sam was still an interesting read, i rofl when he told me the story of the court scenario, sucks about the arches though mate i remembered you telling me about that.
Why didnt DNA Cars reply about that? When he admits there your property?
Onwards and upwards fella let me know when you want the detailing to begin!!!!
Why didnt DNA Cars reply about that? When he admits there your property?
Onwards and upwards fella let me know when you want the detailing to begin!!!!
legalpickle
Banned
DNA won't return the arches coz DNA's a dick and blindly believes that he can't be wrong and must win! Oh, he'll be pounded this time if I have anything to do with it - which I will!
We take reports of trader issues VERY seriously and have removed several traders in the past from TGTT. It is concerning to hear another member say he had problems with this trader, ultimately if you dont tell us about these problems there is nothing we can do about it.[/QUOTE]
I did say but as you were in talks with sam you decided to wait until the court hearing. Which is fair enought.
I'm just glad to see that we have a good outcome off this
I did say but as you were in talks with sam you decided to wait until the court hearing. Which is fair enought.
I'm just glad to see that we have a good outcome off this
gv1.3
Admin
you say you are experienced at this, I appreciate you have helped Sam but resorting to personal insults about someones family is not very professional in my opinion and makes you sound like an idiot.
Dont join this site to insult anyone, or you will be sent on your way.
Dylan
he is a dick? ... name calling... how grown up.
Sam I suggest you reel this guy in. Ill ban him as he is adding nothing to this thread and it appears he joined just to flex his legal knowledge and insult people.
richglanzav
Member +
things like this always serve an unfortunate reminder that u rly cant trust any1 these days. cryin shame rly.
cryin shame rly.
Streetech
Member +
When I checked the car over I found a number of faults with the paint and finish (and all the other things that were wrong with it or missing).
If I had thought that DNA cars was not responsable for the condition of the car, I would not have given a statement to the court and I would not have attended court as a witness for Sam to give evidence if needed.
I am still amazed how someone can sell a car in that state and try to make out nothing was wrong.
Starlet_Sam
Moderator, Regional Area Reps Supervisor & Gay Car
That wasn't his intention at all Dylan, we both have feelings towards John that are hard to hide
! Have forwarded a PM to you.