Dated 06th March 2003
WITNESS STATEMENT OF FACT
Following on from page 1
f) In relation to paragraph 23, I have never said that Scoobysport pioneered the lightening of fly wheels. We did however pioneer the particular porting of headers on this vehicle as it was my company that discovered the need for this work.
g) In relation to paragraph 25, it is important to note that the Claimant concedes that at no time did he ever raise the handling or braking issues with me in relation to the car. I do not accept that this was because he thinks I was not competent to carry it out. My firm are very well known and in fact made our name in relation to supplying handling and braking modifications on these cars. We have developed braking and handling solutions for these cars for 6 years, working with the world's leading suppliers. From our experience in the fields of handling and braking, we consider that we are experts in relation to these parts of a Subaru's performance.
h) In relation to paragraph 28 I do not accept that it was once a correct ratio rear axle and limited slip diff was put in that the braking problems disappeared. This is simply untrue.
i) The Claimant had in fact by this time already had his brakes upgraded by B.R Developments and this work was done on the 12th April 2002. That is why the braking problems were not relevant because he spent �1,448.66 plus VAT having the brakes upgraded. The braking was nothing to do with the issues which I dealt with, either the gear box, the limited slip diff or indeed anything else that I did. I do not therefore accept any responsibility whatsoever for any braking difficulties and it is very well known that as Mr. Pye will no doubt confirm that these vehicles need the brakes upgrading even in standard form let alone in the heavily modified and increased power form of Mr.Smith's car.
j) In relation to paragraph 29 whilst I fully appreciate Mr. Smith's anxiety, I do not accept that the items I carried out robbed him of the enjoyment of the vehicle. Mr. Smith explained to me that he used the car for long motorway journeys and he wished the gear ratios to be raised to improve his fuel consumption. In relation to the axle, again I do not accept that the wrong differentials caused the vehicle to handle differently in these conditions although I accept that in the end they had to be changed. I have already paid in full to Mr. Smith more than the original invoice with my firm. The original invoice that I rendered the Claimant was for �991.36 plus VAT totalling �1,164.84. I have reimbursed Mr. Smith �1818.00 in compensation.
15. As a result I believe that I have fully reimbursed the Claimant in respect of all items.
16. I do not accept that he is entitled to claim the other items outstanding, in particular braking in which he had upgraded and wishes me to pay for and futhermore the four wheel alignment test which he has carried out on four occasions which is wholly unnecessary.
17. I also dispute the fact that I spoilt his enjoyment of the car and in any event there was not a contractual term between us as to enjoyment and I deny that he is entitled as a matter of contract to damages for loss of enjoyment. This was a motor car which purpose was to drive from a to b and I do not accept therefore that he has any contractual entitlement to compensation for loss of enjoyment in that respect.
18. Furthermore I believe the reason why the Claimant went all over the countryside having people look at and test his vehicle was because he enjoyed being involved in that environment and not because it was necessary. I note that he lives in Darlington and yet he drove almost the length of the country to Gloucester on a number of occasions to have a four wheel alignment test carried out which was wholly unnecessary. There are a number of other specialists in this field far nearer then that and I do not accept that he went there through any default on my part.
19. In the circumstances I submit that any errors that were made on my part or through my chosen sub contractors have now been remedied and I have paid the cost of that and I am not bound to pay the Claimant anything further.
20. I certainly deny his claim to compensation in the sum claimed and I deny his entitlement to interest on any sums claimed
End Of Statement
NOTE:
Mr Croney's statement above is at odds to his previous statement, no doubt tailored to best meet the circumstances
OUTCOME:
However, District Judge Cuthbertson sitting at Middlesbrough County Court ordered that Croney pay the sum of �1769.37 in full by 9th April 2003. In his summing up District Judge Cuthbertson made the following observations:
You do not have to be a physicist to realize that if you have different front and rear axles you will have handling problems.
Was Mr Smith supposed to have his car x-rayed to ensure that the work done and claimed to be done by Croney and paid for by Mr Smith had been done?
It must have been like a revelation on the road to Damascus when Mr Smith discovered he had different ratios front and rear.
SO : CAVEAT EMPTOR
On the 14th of April a cheque was received from Croney.
CONCLUSION:
Some time later Scoobysport ceased trading and the name was bought by a totally unrelated party. The new Scoobysport has no relationship whatsoever with the previous entity and I am pleased to point out that it is a reputable well thought of Company.