A warning to all potential customers of a company called Auto Lusso
I am writing this Blog so that I may make prospective customers of a company called Auto Lusso aware of their somewhat questionable business dealings. I searched the internet hard before I gave this company my business and found nothing untoward. I now know that this was because the name they where trading under was relatively new and I was soon to realise that they had previously traded under a few names.
I believe it to be my social responsibility to put the following information on the internet to enable customers to make informed decisions before committing to an agreement with this firm.
This company is now trading under the name “Auto Lusso Servicing Ltd” but has traded as: Smart Alfa, Beacon Automotive, CLcars (eBay) and Auto Lusso (as I knew them). Their address is: Sparrow Hall Farm, Eddlesborough, Dunstable, Bedfordshire LU6 2ES and their company website is www.autolusso.co.uk.
I currently have a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against them for over 1200 pounds. However, as you will discover, to date, I have been unable to recover this money. The following is a very detailed account of the circumstances running up to and the subsequent legal proceedings I have been forced to take……
......In December 2007 I ordered an Alfa Romeo 159 Ti Sportwagon from a company, advertising on the internet, called Auto Lusso. This was a factory order as they did not have the model in stock. I paid the required 1000 pound deposit with my credit card and prepared to sit back and wait the advertised 12-16 weeks for my new car to arrive. This should have been mid March at the latest.
During this time I paid several visits to my local Alfa dealer just to ogle at my new car and remind me of what I had ordered. On one such visit, whilst talking to the salesman, I was made aware that the Ti model had been so popular that Alfa had decided to include it within their main 2008 model range, instead of the Special Edition that it was in 2007. The downside as far as his customers where concerned was that a lot of the extras included on the 2007 model would now cost extra. Using the 08 brochure and price list, he showed me that if a customer wanted to spec a 08 159 Ti to the old 07 spec, it would now cost them an extra 1600 pounds above the unchanged basic list price!
I was a little alarmed at the implications of this as I had used up all of my budget on the car itself and wouldn't have been able to afford the extra money. However, I reassured myself with the fact that I had a contract with an agreed price and within that contract it listed the 2007 specification and so I did not think I would be affected.
Around the same time Auto Lusso wrote to me saying that Alfa Romeo had unexpectedly closed the manufacturing plant for a two month refit and that all orders would be subject to a delay. The letter did not specify how long the delay would be but I assumed it would be about two months.
This now started to give me some serious concerns. At the time of ordering I could have taken a small to medium delay, but two months was now getting too close to a family driving holiday I had booked to the Italian Alps, on which we were departing on the 1st June. If the car did not arrive in time then this would ultimately lead to the cancellation of our holiday and subsequent loss of several sizeable deposits. A two month delay brought the delivery date to mid May and this combined with the uncertainty over the specification caused me enough concern to phone Auto Lusso for some assurances.
During this telephone call I expressed my concerns to their Sales Manager, a Mr Michael Walsh. Throughout, he was unsympathetic with a "not my problem/fault" attitude. He reluctantly confirmed to me that the car was indeed going to cost more than the previous contractually agreed price. How much he did not know but he was sure he could "do me a deal!". He was particularly evasive regarding the subject of a delivery date. Eventually, after some pressure, he came up with what sounded like a guess of late May. This was too late. This would have been a delivery period of 26 weeks from ordering and I wasn't convinced that he wasn't just telling me a complete lie just to appease me and get me off the phone. I then said to him that with regret I would have to cancel the car on what constituted two breaches of the original contract:
1. They where unable to deliver the agreed car with the agreed specification at the agreed price as laid down in our contract.
2. The new delivery time was unacceptable, outside the advertised time of 12-16 weeks and constituted what I considered to be an "..unreasonable time..." under the "Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982."
On making this statement, Mr Walsh became aggressive and (tried to be!) intimidating. He stated that in accordance with the conditions of the contract, they would only refund half of my deposit if I cancelled. This conversation was now beginning to degenerate into an argument and going nowhere but downhill, so I ended it wanting all further communication with them to be documented. Even at this early stage, it was obvious by his attitude, that this could end up in the County Court.
Now before I go on, I understand that these problems where not all of Auto Lusso's making and that Alfa Romeo had a large part to play in this, but my contract was with Auto Lusso and not Alfa Romeo. Having studied Law, I can confirm to anyone in similar circumstances that their supply problems are indeed their problems and not the customers. That may sound a bit callous but that's business and the law agrees. Within their own contract there is a condition that states:
"…Should any changes make it impossible to deliver a vehicle in the specification agreed, we reserve the right to reject your order and return your deposit."
This was absolutely the case so they should have complied with their own terms and conditions and pursued Alfa Romeo for any small losses they may have incurred.
With regard to the returning of only half my deposit; again in these particular set of circumstances this is unlawful. I had good reason to cancel and just because something is written into a contract does not mean it is legally binding if a court decides it to be unfair. This is laid down in a piece of legislation called the "Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCR) 1994" and should the court rule a particular condition to be unfair, then this would void the whole contract and makes it unenforceable. This is the same piece of legislation that all the banks are now being held to account for over their bank charges.
I would have had to argue that I had good reason to cancel the contract, but this would not have been a problem as AL had clearly breached it on two counts. Had I cancelled on a whim, just because I had changed my mind, then quite rightly I would have been liable for an administrative charge equal to their costs. However, this was not merely a change of mind. I still wanted this model of car and after cancelling I bought an ex demonstrator, of the exact same model, with 2200 miles on it for the same price AL were selling a new one. If it could have been at all possible, I would have preferred the new one for my money!
So far your probably thinking this is just two parties that have a disagreement and what is his point. Well you would be absolutely right, but for the fact that it was the subsequent behaviour of AL that I think every one considering giving any business to them, should be made aware of. For I believe it to be have been dishonest, possibly criminal and as I found out later, by no means the first time they had behaved in this manner.....read on and you can decide for yourself!
As previously mentioned, after the telephone conversation I wanted all future correspondence in writing. My initial letter to AL was very amicable and suggested a course of action that would be beneficial to both parties. I knew I had a strong case to reclaim the full amount from them but It was going to take a lot of time, effort and paperwork and at this time I still considered them to be a reputable company.
Without admission of liability, I suggested that:
Using the £1000 already paid, AL fit £560 worth of Steinbauer P-Box (A performance upgrade kit) to the car that I would get from a dealer, refund £300 and keep the rest as a good will gesture. I thought this was more than reasonable. They would have had the profit from the P-Box plus 240 pounds and everyone could walk away happy!.....yes?.......NO! This letter and my proposal were given a stiff ignoring.
Two weeks later, after receiving no response, I wrote to them again. A little more forcefully this time, again restating my offer but this time saying that they were forcing me to take legal action if they did not respond. I got a response to this one.....not a very good one though! Their letter consisted of two lines from the company secretary, a Ms Felicity Ulton, saying they had received my letter and it had been forwarded to the Director of the company, a Mr Ned Kirkham, who would write back to me once he had returned from holiday. However, a few days later I received another letter addressed to me but upon opening, I found it was actually for someone called Mr G Morza who seemed to be in a similar argument. The surprising thing about it was that it was signed by Mr Kirkham on a date that he was supposedly on holiday!!!!....(starting to smell a rat now!)
Another 2 weeks went by and Mr Kirkham had not replied, as had been promised, so I wrote a third letter. This was now a fairly forceful ultimatum, threatening legal action as I was clearly getting the run-around. Perhaps they thought I would lose the will to pursue them over this. (they clearly don't know me!) I received a response to this one from Mr Kirkham himself. In it he half apologised for not writing to me before but then, incredibly, he went on to say that the reason was that this was the first letter they had received from me, despite the fact that all letters where sent recorded delivery and his own secretary had replied to the previous one!!!
The contents of his letter basically regurgitated the conditions of the contract regarding the delivery time and return of my deposit, but didn't touch on the specification issue at all.
Enough was enough! This was not a satisfactory response and so I wrote to them a fourth time, cancelling my offer and threatening small claims action in the County Court if they did not refund my money within 14 days. This letter was again completely ignored and I still had not received a penny, not even the 500 pound they had agreed to refund. As a result, on the 4th April 2008, I initiated a claim against Beacon Automotive (trading as Auto Lusso) at Reading County Court.
On receiving notice of my legal action, Auto Lusso filed a defence in writing and as the claimant I received a copy. The contents where mostly what I expected, sighting that all the terms and conditions were both laid down within the contract and had been available online to view before I committed to the agreement. However it centred entirely on the delivery schedule issue and did not touch on the specification side of my complaint. This showed legal naivety on their part. Had it got to court, I could have asked the Judge with my first statement to have the defendants case dismissed as they had not filed a defence against the whole claim. Only under extreme discretionary circumstances would a Judge allow a defence to be brought before the court that had not been previously filed. Essentially, nobody can be expected to suitably prepare a legal argument against a defence they have no prior knowledge of.
What truly left me open mouthed about the document was the complete and utter lie that was contained within it. They alleged that I had agreed to a full and final settlement of 500 pounds and that I had been sent a cheque for this amount! This is a complete untruth. At no time did I agree to a settlement figure of £ 500 and I have never received a penny from them. Auto Lusso are on very dangerous legal ground with that statement, their defence is a sworn legal affidavit made to a court of the crown and as such any deliberate untruth contained within it is tantamount to perjury. In extreme cases this is punishable with a prison sentence of up to 7 years!
I felt even more confident at this point. I had no doubts about my chances of success and was looking forward to my day in court. However, as was becoming somewhat of a habit for Auto Lusso, they failed to respond to two pieces of correspondence from the court and so I was denied my big day and on the 18th July a judgement by default was awarded in my favour.
I gave AL two weeks to comply with the demands of the court. Again I received nothing from them, not even an acknowledgement of the judgement. On the 4th August 08 I applied for a Warrant of Execution to be enforced by the office of Luton CC Bailiffs. Coincidentally, on the 8th August Auto Lusso applied to the court to have the judgement set aside and their defence reinstated. This is a fairly normal delaying tactic in small claims actions and to be expected. The reason sited was that, apparently, their member of staff who looks after all their litigation, a Mr Benedick Grant, had been ill with a pulmonary embolism during the period running up to the hearing and so was unable to respond to any correspondence from the court. Another hearing was set for the 24th November to consider their application.
I was, unavoidably, out of the country on the date of the hearing. I was welcome, but not required to attend, as this was a hearing to review their application and not a judgement hearing. However, I would have attended if I could have. In my absence, I wrote a letter to the court essentially doubting the integrity of their application. I sighted the many examples of AL ignoring correspondence from both myself and the court and that it was my belief that this was just another delaying tactic. Unfortunately, due to a clerical error the Judge did not see my letter and despite Auto Lusso initiating this hearing, they again failed to make an appearance! The Judge adjourned the hearing to a the 14th January 2009 upon neither party attending.
On the date, I attended this latest hearing, still very confident with my case and the huge floors in theirs. Again, for a third time, nobody from Auto Lusso made an appearance. The Judge was annoyed by this as they had wasted his time. He was especially annoyed as it had been AL who had generated the 2nd and 3rd hearings and failed to turn up to both. He reinstated the previous judgement and my warrant and went on to offer me an extensive list of costs that I had not even considered to add. Graciously, I only included a legal fee that I had incurred and nothing from the list of; time, effort, extra interest (at a rate way above the Bank of England base rate!), administrative costs, time off work, travelling costs…….the list went on!
Now this is the particularly suspicious behaviour which is of most concern, regarding the overall integrity of this company……..
In early March, armed with the reinstated Warrant of Execution, the office of Luton County Court Bailiffs again attempted to enforce the CCJ and seize money or assets.
On arriving at the premises they were informed that the company called “Auto Lusso” was no longer trading! Instead the company was now called “Auto Lusso servicing Ltd“. Although subtle, this name change meant that the warrant was unenforceable. I was informed of this new development on the 3rd March by a letter from Luton Bailiffs and soon after, I rang and spoke to them.
During this conversation they told me that they were “extremely familiar” with this company and all it’s previous names. To their knowledge this company had changed it’s name on several occasions over the past 4 years. They also said that they always have problems trying to identify who actually runs the company as when asked, all of the key individuals deny having any part in the directorship. In addition, whilst they have recovered monies from this company in the past, most of the cars or assets on site are registered to individuals and not in the name of the company.
I can’t state here why I believe they have changed their name. I have no factual proof and any allegation I make could be considered libellous. I will let you draw your own conclusions to the reasons why. What I can tell you is that my warrant was one of many that the Bailiffs where trying to enforce on that day with this company. When you consider this fact and combine it with the familiarity of the Bailiffs over a substantial period of time, it becomes obvious!
This is not over! A year has passed since my initial cancellation letter was sent. The current total, including legal fees, is running at £1226.19 but it‘s about to become a whole lot more. Based on what the Bailiffs have told me, a new tack is required. I could easily have the name changed on the warrant to that of the new company but if all their assets are not in their name then it would probably prove fruitless. Therefore, I have been left with no other recourse but to issue a Statutory Demand. To those of you who are unfamiliar, this is essentially the first step towards winding up a company. They will have 21 days to reply and comply with the order of the court. Should they fail to to do so (again!) then I will apply for a winding up petition against the company "Auto Lusso Servicing Ltd". Should my application be a success then the court appointed receivers will move in and essentially terminate the company.
The shame of it all is that this is so senseless! The amount of money we are talking about here is not a great deal to Auto Lusso, but it is to me! However, it is no longer about the money. If I never receive a penny from Auto Lusso then I can seek reimbursement from my credit card company under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. This is now about all the people who have lost money to this company with which, it would seem, they have been getting away with for years. They can not be allowed to get away with this again and if I don’t do something about it then who will? I will continue with this course of legal action until I receive my money or this company has been forced to cease trading, however much it costs me/my Credit Card company.
