Black Horse vs J. Hastings Hearing 1st May 2014

J. Hastings - Time Served MOD (Army, Navy & Coastguard) Rotary Wing Airframe Technician (2004)
Designer of Rivet Nut & Stud Hand Tool. NATO Approved 2015 - awaiting N.S.N (NATO Stock Number)

JH Research Thread:

JH Class Action Opinion Poll:

JH KTM class action facebook page:

Note: Photobucket images no longer displayed, please click the link below for Word version of this post (images included):

https://app.box.com/s/eqmzkoj0qljfxbafo0d253nbj5lix76a

Introduction:

20th June 2012 – Brand new 2011 KTM Superduke R acquired from Laguna Motorcycles on PCP Hire Purchase contract with Black Horse Ltd.
17th July 2012 – Reported swollen tank to Laguna (expansion prevented front bolt installation + rear mount separation) Emails/calls to Laguna Motorcycles not returned.
4th August 2012 – Defective tank replaced by AMS Motorcycles (motorcycle returned shortly afterwards to have new fuel tank installed correctly – again due to expansion & front bolt cross threaded).
29th August 2012 – Motorcycle inspected by Montgomery Assessors: confirms expansion, internal degradation & states latent defect present.
November 2012 – Motorcycle formally rejected & rescind contract due to expansion, rear mount separation & internal degradation @ 323 miles.
Black Horse insist KTM inspect motorcycle (for 2nd time), inspection denied on JH premises by Black Horse - ultimatum sent to Black Horse: motorcycle not to be accepted back due to suspicion toward KTM in replacing tank again. JH insists Black Horse accepted rejection when AMS Motorcycles collected motorcycle. Black Horse deny acceptance of rejection - technically they had.
8th January 2013 – AMS Motorcycles collect motorcycle.
23rd January 2013 – Black Horse confirm motorcycle ready for collection. Report by AMS Motorcycles (same date) state “no issues found”.


Mark Blake, Quality Solicitors, Worcester

1. Montgomery Assessor's report sent with letter of rejection to Laguna Motorcycles & Black Horse Ltd. Mr. Blake failed to identify the report's lack of CPR compliance - NO STATEMENT OF TRUTH. Not until the hearing did I learn of this critical failing that has resulted in >£25k total loss, £10k court order (that won't be paid) & £4k outstanding finance amount Black Horse believe I owe them (recently slashed from £8k - again won't be paid. I won't re-enter the contract & consent to fraud.) Laguna Motorcycle's debt collectors have visited twice but turned away.
2. My intention was to reject the motorcycle outright as the first tank had been replaced - the second still to my dissatisfaction thus defective.
3. Mr. Blake failed to execute his responsibility to provide duty of care & advising an optimal course of action(s) to best protect my interests by implementing a strategy conducive to success in the small claims courts in order to enforce formal rejection of the motorcycle and seek full refund & costs:

a) Retain possession of the motorcycle.
b) Acquire CPR complaint report.
c) Initiate small claims court action against Black Horse for breach of contract.
d) Deliver the motorcycle myself to court & demonstrate the defective nature of the fuel tank - specifically internal degradation the excessive expansion of the fuel tank.
e) Succeed in small claims court.

4. Black Horse Ltd continuously insisted I made the collection arrangement safe in the knowledge that my report was not CPR compliant.
5. Believing that the letter of rejection & the validity of Montgomery Assessor's report would be upheld I released the motorcycle GN12 FMD in good faith. AMS Motorcycles collected the motorcycle 8/1/2013, cementing my rejecting & Black Horse's acceptance of rejection.

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
SUBMITTING NON CPR COMPLIANT REPORT
DERELICTION OF DUTY
FAILURE IN DUTY OF CARE

PRACTICE DIRECTION 22 STATEMENT OF TRUTH:



David Kirwan, Kirwan's Solicitors

Mr. Kirwan's "services" were employed after the motorcycle had been collected by AMS Motorcycles Ltd.

1. Instructed me to collect the motorcycle from AMS Motorcycles Ltd after they falsified their report of the fuel tank's condition - I refused as I would be deemed to have accepted the change of fuel tank by AMS Motorcycles had I done so.
2. Failed to present the fact that Mr. Montgomery's report was not CPR compliant. (see above: PRACTICE DIRECTION 22 STATEMENT OF TRUTH)
3. Insisted on three day trial knowing that small claims court action had already commenced. Understandably this was dismissed. Had Mr. Kirwan invoked items 9 & 10 below (assuming the county court would honour the invocation of items 9 &10) Mr. Lynn would have to have admitted prior to or capitulated at the hearing in light of his false representation of events.
4. Issue of "premium" - Sales of Goods Act does not discriminate between "new" & "used" (within reason). Mr. Kirwan impeded progress in pursuit of establishing a wholly and irrelevant moot issue whilst I incurred the financial costs of his laggard strategy.
5. Further impeded progress on insisting that the matter was "complex" - not so:

A motorcycle's fuel tank is obviously one of the easiest components to access and is either:

a) Chemically resistant - thus remains inert.
b) Not chemically resistant - thus demonstrates adverse reaction.

A fuel tank is either:

a) Dimensionally stable - thus within dimensional tolerance.
b) Not dimensionally stable - thus exceeds dimensional tolerance.

6. Insisted Burden of Proof was on me. Sales of Goods Act deems this to be not the case (see below under "additional").
7. The following link was brought Mr. Kirwan's attention, he assured me there was nothing untoward to be concerned about:



8. Applied injunction against AMS Motorcycles Ltd but failed to invoke the following critical legal protocols (& arguably foundational legal formalities) immediately after Mr. Lynn was appointed by Nadeem Khan.

9. Abuse of process & failure to obtain potentially material evidence & principles:

Please note: The motorcycle is a KTM 990 Superduke R and the "inspection" was conducted on biased ground at KTM Sportmotorcycle UK, Northamptonshire

Lamont, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 2144

The principles for determining whether a trial should be stayed for abuse of process where there is a failure to obtain potentially material evidence are now well established. The relevant principles were laid down in the leading authority of R (Ebrahim) v Feltham Magistrates' Court [2001] 1 WLR 1293. Although that was a Divisional Court case, the principles there enunciated have since been applied in this court in cases such as R v Medway [2000] Crim LR 415 and R v Dobson [2001] EWCA Crim 1606.

In determining whether there is a stay, the principles can be stated as follows:

(1) Was the prosecution in breach of a duty in failing to obtain evidence? In determining that question regard should be had to the Code of Practice applicable to prosecuting authorities and the Attorney General's guidelines. If there is no breach of duty, then the question of stay will not arise.
(2) If the prosecution is in breach of duty, have they acted in bad faith or otherwise in serious default of their duty? If so, then the prosecution should be stayed on that ground alone, irrespective of whether a fair trial would be possible. In these very exceptional cases it is not so much that the defendant cannot receive a fair trial but that it would be unfair to subject him to a trial at all.
(3) Absent bad faith or serious default, there should only be a stay if there is such serious prejudice to the defendant that a fair trial cannot be guaranteed.
(4) In most cases, the difficulty arising from the lack of evidence can be dealt with by an appropriate direction in the trial process itself. It is only in exceptional circumstances that a stay is likely to be appropriate.
In this context it is important to bear in mind two points which were emphasised by this court in Ebrahim. First, the discretionary power to ensure fairness means fairness to both the defendant and to the prosecution. It is important that the guilty are convicted as well as the innocent acquitted. Second, there will frequently be holes in the prosecution case which may result from some failing by the prosecution. Typically, for example, it may be a failure to recover CCTV material which would have been available had steps been taken at the appropriate time. In giving the judgment of the court Brookes LJ said:

"27. .... If, in such a case, there is sufficient credible evidence, apart from the missing evidence, which, if believed, would justify a safe conviction, then a trial should proceed, leaving the defendant to seek to persuade the jury or justices not to convict because evidence which might otherwise have been available was not before the court through no fault of his. Often the absence of [relevant evidence] is likely to hamper the prosecution as much as the defence."

10. Failed to invoke Witness Summonsing of Mr. Lynn prior to hearing.

11. CFA first dependent of "quantum".

12. CFA later became dependent on favourable report.

13. Possible collusion with ACE Assessors (see below.)

All parties assumed I was relying solely on Mr Montgomery's report - unaware I had detailed photographs taken by myself of the fuel tank's defect (confirmed by date & time). Mr. Kirwan's failure to inform me of the absence of CPR compliance re. Mr Montgomery report, destroyed the distinct advantage I had of visiting AMS Motorcycles (post official rejection) so as to photograph the interior of the tank they replaced without my consent. Mr. Blake & Mr. Kirwan are responsible for their respective failures regarding Duty of Care & Dereliction of Duty towards their client in what amounted to a polarised ambush on the day of the hearing.

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
DERELICTION OF DUTY
FAILURE IN DUTY OF CARE
GROSS OVERCHARGING


Andrew Montgomery, Montgomery Assessors

Report:

1. Attended hearing dated 1st May 2014 with certification/credentials & tablet with original photography.
2. Not permitted to be present in hearing presided over by Nadeem Khan.


AMS Motorcycles Ltd, Tewksbury

The document below submits the fact as a statement on behalf of Mr. Bernard Tiller of KTM Sportmotorcycle UK that the fuel tanks, when exposed to thermal heat soak expand beyond their design parameters & are therefore defective in nature:




Motohooligan rear tank mounts to correct excessive expansion issue with defective KTM Sportmotorcycle 990 Superduke fuel tanks - the same defect that Mr. Tiller of KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd claimed does not exist:



1. AMS Motorcycles Ltd were previously uncooperative to rectify their incorrect installation of the second tank (I was instructed via email by AMS Motorcycles Ltd to use KTM's recovery service to collect the motorcycle in order for AMS Motorcycles Ltd to rectify their fault).
2. AMS Motorcycles Ltd's motive changed once motorcycle had been formally rejected i.e., the motorcycle was collected in a prompt & punctual fashion by AMS Motorcycles Ltd.
3. AMS Motorcycles Ltd's premises is a modest, double floor commercial unit - space is at a premium.
4. The "inspection" AMS Motorcycles Ltd performed was free of charge.
5. AMS Motorcycles Ltd are a business but spent 2 weeks (8/1/2013 - 23/1/2013) to perform an inspection that should've taken no longer than 60 minutes whilst generating no revenue from the inspection.
6. AMS Motorcycles Ltd's prioritised interest was to inspect the motorcycle at their earliest convenience in order to convey their findings & solicit the collection of the motorcycle in order to replace it with a motorcycle that would have served to generate revenue for the business - due to weather/riding constraints: seasonally, winter time is the time of year motorcycle shops (the repair side of the business) are at their busiest.
7. AMS Motorcycles' sent 3 storage charges after I had advised them that the motorcycle had been rejected & that I would not be accepting return of the motorcycle (storage charges not paid.)
8. I was invited to KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd to inspect freestanding tank (irrelevant as tank was replaced due to expansion) but prejudicially ordered not to attend the formal inspection for fear that I would have identified that the fuel tank was replaced by AMS Motorcycles Ltd whilst the motorcycle was in their possession.
9. In reference to the above & due to my previous (confrontational) interaction with AMS Motorcycles Ltd, they knew that my grievance was with the inherently defective nature of 990 Superduke fuel tanks & notas an isolated case. This did little to stifle their motive towards unlawfully replacing the fuel tank. If AMS Motorcycles Ltd had been instructed by Robert Quinton of Black Horse Ltd to replace the fuel tank, they were in breach of duty of care & the law to inform me of this instruction.
10. Breach of Injunction.


FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATION
BREACH OF INJUNCTION
TAMPERING WITH MATERIAL EVIDENCE
CONTEMPT
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE


Philip Mark Lynn, A.C.E Assessors Ltd

Report:

1. Breached multiple instructions provided by myself (detailed below.) NOTE: SECTION 11.1 - ABSOLVING MR LYNN OF DILIGENCE & DUTY TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED BY MYSELF ON BEHALF OF KIRWAN'S SOLICITORS
2. Price of inspection tripled but distance to inspection reduced significantly. The motorcycle was unlawfully moved from AMS Motorcycles Ltd, Tewkesbury (in breach of injunction) to KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd, Northampton.
3. Concealed photography of tank's interior (detailed below.)
4. Neglected to prove fuel content to support claim that "no leaks were present" (detailed below.)
5. Omitted lower bush deliberately to conceal the fact that the fuel tank had exceeded it dimensional tolerance (detailed below.)
6. Mr. Lynn stated the bolt was easily wound by hand. Note - front fuel tank mounting bolt is non-knurled M8x40mm socket head cap screw.
7. Upon insertion, the bolt head barely stands proud above the aluminium collar & bolt head is without knurls. Mr. Lynn would have to have demonstrated a vice like grip & dexterity of a child and simultaneously compress the fuel tank sufficiently to have achieved this claim. Cross refer photos 9.13 & 9.14 in ACE Assessors report above & personal comparison below - the tank had retracted by several millimetres after bolt reinstallation asserting the fact that Mr. Lynn must have used a robust tool to install & cross thread the bolt - undeniably proving Mr Lynn's claim is without question: falsified.
Front fuel tank mounting bolt, item #15:



8. Cross threaded bolt due to tank expansion. With no flash from the camera, the angle was chosen specifically so that the tank's shadow would mask the gap between the lower rubber bush & the chassis mounting plate. (detailed below.)
9. Tank had retracted considerably between unfastened photo/refastened photo & evidence proves the bolt had been under load when forcibly installed.
10. Heat soak causing further expansion of the fuel tank could lead additional load to the bolt causing it to bend & permitting fuel tank/steering assembly interference.
11. Vibrational fatigue (thru insufficient bolt tension) may result in future bolt failure, the result is self explanatory.
12. Sequestered inspection conducted at KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd - I was not aware AMS Motorcycles Ltd had transferred the motorcycle 5 months previously until the time of inspection.
13. I was not permitted to be present at the inspection by order of Nadeem Khan & reinforced by A.C.E Assessors. I was therefore not privy to any discussion between Mr. Lynn of A.C.E Assessors Ltd & Mr. Tiller of KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd. My absence entitled Mr Lynn the freedom to falsify his report.
14. Inspection date brought forward without formal notification to myself.
15. I expected Mr. Lynn to perform in a professional capacity, not to conceal the fact the tank was an imposter. My own photography proves that Mr. Lynn's report was manufactured under fraudulent pretence & amounts to nothing more than a litany of lies with sole intent to defraud the legal process.

Instructions to SJE via David Kirwan of Kirwan's Solicitors:



Email from David Kirwan regarding instructions to SJE. There was no need to "butter up" ACE Assessors, all that was expected of Mr. Lynn was to act in a professional capacity by following my instructions & to report that the tank had exceeded its dimensional tolerance and had expanded beyond its design limits, as proved by evidence:



BBC Panorama film about unethical court experts:



Experts under suspicion:




FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATION
DELIBERATE BREACH OF INSTRUCTION
TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE
CONTEMPT OF COURT
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
FALSE STATEMENT OF TRUTH


False statements CPR 32.14

(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Further reading (Google "false statement of truth"):


























Photographic analysis, comparison & criticism of Mr. Lynn of ACE Assessors’ report:


Photo 1.01 Notes:
1. Little to no visible clearance between front mount & headstock.
2. Excessive tank expansion detailed by yellow & white centerlines.
3. Yellow line MUST be either:
a) In parity with the white line
b) OR behind the white line – NOT IN FRONT.
4. Mounting assembly (lower rubber bush) cannot be displaced rearward any further to align with bolt hole.
5. Bolt cannot be installed due to excessive growth of fuel tank, as evidence by the eccentric rubber bush/bolt hole relationship.


Photo 1.02 Notes:
1. No visible gap between front mount & headstock – confirming identical level of expansion as per photo 1.01.
2. Mounting assembly (lower rubber bush) deliberately omitted to eliminate valid point of reference of expansion.
3. IDENTICAL level of expansion as per photo 1.01, thus bolt could not have been installed due to excessive growth, contrary to Mr. Lynn’s fraudulent claim.
4. Taken from A.C.E Assessor's report: 5.2 There was no evidence of distortion, insecurity, misalignment, fouling of other components, leaks, damage, swelling or other issues present with the fuel tank and its installation on the motorcycle.


Photo 1.03 Notes:
1. Bolt is cross threaded, not seated fully nor correctly.
2. There should be no converging/diverging gap – the mounting assembly should sit square with NO visible gap between the chassis mounting plate & the mounting assembly.
3. Visible gap between front mount & headstock demonstrating partial compression of excessively expanded fuel tank.


Photo 1.04 Notes:
1. Mr Lynn’s instruction was to take the photograph from the side of the motorcycle – not from an oblique angle whereby it must be assumed that Mr Lynn has attempted to incorporate the shadow of the fuel tank’s overhang in order mask the fact that the mounting assembly has been incorrectly installed.
2. The bolt is approaching the vertical - the chassis plate is in decline therefore the bolt is cross threaded, not seated fully nor correctly - and couldn’t possibly have been started by hand without pre-compression of the fuel tank. Assuming this photo was taken after the tank was first unfastened as no proof exists that this is the case.
3. Converging/diverging gap is again present – no gap should exist when mounting assembly is installed correctly.
4. Visible gap between front mount & headstock demonstrating partial compression of excessively expanded fuel tank. Mr Lynn claimed the bolt was easily wound by hand:
“4.14 The front mounting bush was reinserted and the tank re-secured to the frame. The front bolt was easily hand threaded into the frame bolthole and retightened. When refitted, the tank had adequate clearance to the steering head (image 14). – Mr Lynn would have to have simultaneously applied in excess of 50kg of force (estimated) to compress the tank. This declaration by Mr Lynn is 100% FRAUDULENT.
5. No metadata is available for any photograph in Mr Lynn’s report. Either this photo was actually taken before the fuel tank was unfastened & lifted. or forcibly reinstalled after.
6. Underside of chassis plate - weld nut is square to chassis plate confirming that the bolt & front mount mounting assembly components must also be perpendicular to this plate:




Photo 1.05 Notes:
1. Taken December 20th 2012 @ 13:06:31 - 19 days later (January 8th 2013) AMS Motorcycles Ltd collected the motorcycle.
2. Fuel level moderate – bubbles present in base material.
3. Highlighted particular points of reference.


Photo 1.06 Notes:
1. Taken December 20th 2012 @ 13:10:45 – 4 minutes & 14 seconds later
2. Approximately 5 litres of fuel syphoned further revealing bubbles & degradation in base material.


Photo 1.07 Notes:
1. Taken December 20th 2012 @ 13:16:50 – 6 minutes & 5 seconds later. Total time elapsed: 10 minutes & 19 seconds + reduction in fuel content.
2. All three photos prove irrefutably that the fuel tank fitted to the motorcycle at the time of rejection had demonstrated an adverse thus unacceptable reaction to the fuel it was designed for (RON 95 - UK equivalent of Premium Unleaded) signified by the visible internal chemical degradation.
3. It can be reasonably assumed that the fuel tank inspected by Mr Lynn was, as alleged, an imposter, solidifying my allegations against AMS Motorcycles Ltd that they had replaced the fuel tank unlawfully.


Photo 1.08 Notes:
1. Digital/Mobile phone cameras permit user to review photo taken - no self respecting professional would submit this photo as credible evidence & truly representative of the subject matter thus it's purpose is reserved for the sole intention to conceal.
2. The shadow conveniently supresses most of internal contours of base material condition, however sufficient exposure permits comparison of localised moulding inconsistencies. The contours indicate that the fuel tank was not the same.
2. Mr Lynn claimed no fuel leaks were present but no fuel content can be established from this photograph.
4.Of what can be determined, the surface contour characteristics indicate that the fuel tank photographed by Mr Lynn is representative of a virgin fuel tank. As accused, a brand new fuel tank procured by AMS Motorcycles Ltd & replaced unlawfully with intent defraud my rejection of the motorcycle.

Mr Lynn of A.C.E Assessors report conclusion:

Metadata unavailable for electronic version of ACE Assessors report, received via email i.e., no time/date stamps – until the raw photographs are scrutinised to determine the true chronology of Mr Lynn's photography - no proof exists that confirm the chronology of any of the photographs that Mr Lynn had taken is credible.

The lower rubber bush & entire mounting assembly were not perpendicular to chassis plate as detailed & highlighted by the diverging clearance from front to rear of lower rubber bush. High elevation, rearward displacement of camera, no flash & shadow all combine to deliberately obscure clarity of ill fitment but is still clearly determinable.

Mr Lynn's photography of the rear mounts (cross refer ACE Assessors' report with Montgomery Assessors report) demonstrate no partial separation - the probable likelihood was that the fuel tank was in a relaxed state (front mount unfastened) when this photo was taken but can't be confirmed until all of the raw photographs are scrutinised for chronology.

Omission of date/time metadata for ACE Assessors’ photography fail to prove the motorcycle was inspected on the date claimed: 20/3/2014 - I was denied the right to attend hence meta data suppression enabled A.C.E Assessors & KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd the flexibility to conduct & fraudulently manufacture a report at their convenience, at any time. I was denied the right to attend for a very good reason – no physical act or misleading photography could ever have occurred or gone unnoticed & KTM Sportmotorcycle were fearful of the ramifications that a successful rejection would have created as I have been threatening to bring class actions against them.

Taken from A.C.E Assessor's report:
The damage inflicted on the original tank is indicative of AMS Motorcycles’ attempt to reinstall it themselves, the paint damage is signature of the pry bar/screwdriver leverage method thus completely contradicting Mr Tiller's of KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd claim that all fuel tanks of this type are perfectly serviceable. Fuel tanks are NOT interference fit components.



Inconsistent internal moulding characteristics between the fuel tank fitted at the time of rejection and the fuel tank Mr. Lynn interacted with prove with a fine visual analysis that AMS Motorcycles Ltd replaced the fuel tank – unlawfully - hence their report via Mr Tiller is untruthful.
ACE Assessors have conspired with KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd to pervert the course of justice. I have used Mr Lynn's photography against himself to prove that he falsified his statement of truth thus is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of contempt & fraud. Mr Lynn of ACE Assessors manufactured his report & abused his responsibility, his position of trust in order to camouflage the fact that AMS Motorcycles replaced the tank between January 8th 2013 - January 23rd 2013. I'm not surprised that my right to attend the inspection was denied (implicating Nadeem Khan's prejudicial complicity) as I would have identified the change of fuel tank immediately & Mr Lynn would have been rendered completely incapable of refastening the expanded fuel tank without considerable externally applied force.


District Judge Nadeem Khan

I had requested the services of Mr. Bellamy: Advanced automotive vehicle technician & motorcycle specialist.

1. DJNK approved Mr. Lynn of A.C.E Assessors: Time served automotive vehicle technician only. Original inspection cost quoted by A.C.E Assessors increased threefold. Partial refund later sent via Mr. Kirwan (cheque) but not paid into bank account.
2. Ordered myself not to attend the inspection (later reinforced by A.C.E Assessors) - although I respected this order, the inspection date was brought forward without my knowledge thus to prevent impromptu arrival by myself.
3. Denied my witnesses to be present in the hearing.
4. Stated that Andrew Montgomery is not an expert (see Montgomery Assessors report for qualifications - he's a member of the M.I.M.I & M.I.A.E.A)
5. Dismissed all points made by myself (detailed below.)
6. Acknowledged AMS Motorcycles Ltd breach of injunction in transferring the motorcycle to KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd (detailed below.)
7. I attended court with tools & rubber tube (anticipating the challenge that the bubbles were in the fuel - see below). I requested that KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd/AMS Motorcycles Ltd deliver the motorcycle to court, the motorcycle was not delivered.
8. Nadeem Khan refused right of attendance for Mr. Montgomery to be present during the hearing precisely to prevent the corroboration of both mine & Mr. Montgomery's photography (over a 3 month time lapse) to unequivocally dispel the supposition that the bubbles were present in the fuel. As I prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the bubbles were certainly in the base material i.e., AMS Motorcycles replaced the fuel tank when the motorcycle was in their possession between January 8th 2013 - January 23rd 2013.
9. I proved to Nadeem Khan that Mr. Lynn's claim that the fuel tank hadn't expanded excessively was untrue.


Hearing 1st May 2014, Worcester County Court:

Ticoma document used in my witness statement & taken from my research/solution thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22369&p=276676&hilit=fuel+gas+research#p276676

See specifically, sections (under "properties needed for fuel applications"):

Chemical Resistance
Dimensional Stability
Mechanical Properties
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion





Hearing presided over by District Judge Nadeem Khan (DJNK)

All points raised are JH's recital of hearing thus not necessarily in chronological order & believe an integrated microphone adjacent to JH during hearing. Request for transcript sent to Court.

Hearing commenced 12:15 approx.

13:40 approx, hearing adjourned. DJNK: Inclined to dismiss (& rule in favour of Black Horse & Laguna Motorcycles).

Hearing reconvened 14:10 approx & concluded around 15:00.

(Refer to following photo) JH: SJE photo of tank interior shrouded 60% (at least) by shadow – evidence inconclusive. SJE failed to follow JH instruction by using compact camera or phone to capture full detail of tank interior. SJE has not stated that bubbles are present (confirmation to JH that tank was changed). DJNK: Dismisses

Taken from A.C.E Assessor's report:

4.17 The inside of the fuel tank was checked. Ripples in the moulding were evident but there was no evidence of chemical reaction, damage, overheating, leaks etc (image 15).



(Refer to following photo – note fuel level) DJNK (Stated as matter of fact – not as question): Bubbles are in fuel. (Gaslighting - trait of psychopathy and/or corruption) JH: Surface tension of petroleum virtually zero, impossible to sustain effervescence for more than fraction of a second. Bubbles are evidently in plastic. DJNK: Dismisses.

PHOTO TAKEN DECEMBER 20th 2012 13:10:45



JH: (JH) Photos of interior of 2nd tank taken on mobile phone thus verifiable by time & date. DJNK: Dismisses.

(Note fuel level & consistency in positioning of bubbles):

PHOTO TAKEN DECEMBER 20th 2012 13:16:50 - 6 MINUTES 5 SECONDS LATER - THE BUBBLES WERE IRREFUTABLY IN THE BASE MATERIAL



JH: SJE report states no fuel leak evident but fuel content not confirmed in report. DJNK: Dismisses.

JH: SJE made no comments regarding rear mount separation, took no photos to highlight whether mounts had been modified or replaced with Motohooligan parts thus breached JH instructions. DJNK: Dismisses.

“D” travelled from Yorkshire & Mr. Montgomery of Montgomery Assessors attended at cost of £500 to both serve as witnesses in JH's defence.

DJNK: Mr. Montgomery not an expert. JH: Mr. Montgomery is present to verify tank growth & bubbles in base material. He has attended with CV & credentials. DJNK: Dismisses.

JH requests to call “D” & Mr. Montgomery into hearing. DJNK: Request denied.

JH refers to witness statements provided by “P” & “F” & 6x SD.net forum witness questionnaires. DJNK: Witness statements not relevant to motorcycle in question. JH (protest) Witness statements refer to EXACT SAME MODEL! DJNK: Dismisses.

(Refer to following 2x photos. JH refers to both photos in witness statement.) JH: Lower rubber bush required to establish point of reference. Irrespective of whether the tank was changed, clearly tank in SJE report demonstrates excessive growth (DJNK admitted he HADN'T read that part of JH witness statement!) JH: Tank elongation evident in SJE report, tank grown beyond design limits proving tank defect in report itself. Fuel tanks are not interference fit components. DJNK: Dismisses.

SJE photo:



Taken from A.C.E Assessor's report:

5.2 There was no evidence of distortion, insecurity, misalignment, fouling of other components, leaks, damage, swelling or other issues present with the fuel tank and its installation on the motorcycle.

JH photo, original tank, NOTE:
1. Rubber bush in fully retracted position.
2. Not concentric with bolt hole.
3. Forward displacement of rubber bush in relation to bolt hole - highlighting excessive growth.
4. Leading edge of tank mount & its proximity to steering head bearing cap.



JH: SJE report consistent in describing brand new fuel tank. (Expansion by default but no indication of bubbling.) DJNK: Dismisses

JH: Motorcycle collected by AMS Motorcycles 8th January 2013. AMS Motorcycles are manufacturer approved dealership. Inspection should have taken no longer than 60-90 minutes. Inspection was not a paid job. Motorcycle would prove to be nuisance in terms of storage. JH believes that AMS Motorcycles waited approximately 2 weeks for a new tank to be delivered from Austria thus it's my (JH's) unfaltering belief for the last 18 months that AMS Motorcycles & Black Horse have colluded to pervert the course of justice. (Call received from Black Horse, 23rd January 2013 that motorcycle was ready for collection - date coincides with report supplied by AMS Motorcycles that “no issues were found with tank” ) DJNK: Dismisses.

DJNK: JH should have sued manufacturer (KTM.) (DJNK inferred JH should intimate multimillion pound lawsuit against KTM himself.) JH: (somewhat incredulous - the PCP hire purchase contract was with Black Horse Ltd & not with KTM Sportmotorcycle, the manufacturer. Nadeem Khan knew this hence):

DJNK totally undermined Sales of Supply & Goods Act 1994, namely paragraphs 48A – 48F inclusive. DJNK statement blatant side stepping of his judicial responsibility:

Quality of goods, fitness for purpose & free from minor defects – both tanks had exceeded their design limits. Both tanks would have required brute force to install & rear mount separation evident on both tanks. 2nd tank demonstrated adverse & unacceptable internal chemical reaction.

JH: Cited Garside vs Black Horse that vehicle was inspected by Judge on day of hearing. Yet neither the primary nor the secondary pieces (the motorcycle itself & the original fuel tank) of evidence have been delivered to court today. DJNK: Interrupts & dismisses: That's why the SJE inspection was instructed.

JH: Mr. Lynn time served automotive technician – JH time served rotary wing airframe technician. JH qualifications supersede those of Mr. Lynn, JH opinion must count for something. DJNK: Dismisses.

JH: Mr. Lynn no prerequisite qualifications in fuel systems, JH does possess qualifications in fuel systems (JH reaches for indentures, certification & tool patent documentation). DJNK: Dismisses JH credentials.

DJNK: Did you (JH) raise your criticisms with SJE? JH: No, assumed he would be present today for questioning. DJNK: JH should have raised criticisms prior to hearing. (SJE responses would have to have been submitted in form of witness statement & confirmed with statement of truth & Mr. Lynn's word counts for nothing.)

No objections from opposing counsels raised on any points by JH.

DJNK rules in favour of Black Horse & Laguna Motorcycles.

Opposing Counsel: JH responsible for protraction (delay) of case. DJNK: Agrees.

JH protracted case because:

1. I wanted to verify tank legitimacy by being present at the inspection (previously denied by DJNK)
AND
2. I had assumed the motorcycle was still at AMS Motorcycles (15 minute drive so minimal inconvenience to myself however, the motorcycle had been delivered (in breach of injunction) to KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd. (This was not known by JH until 5 months after breach had occurred.)
AND
3. Specifically insisted that highest qualified individual (Mr. Bellamy) conduct inspection under my supervision:

"He has specific experience with motorcycles and is working in direct contact with similar matters."



Opposing Counsel: Mr. Montgomery report not CPR compliant. DJNK: Agrees. (Neither solicitors of my employ had brought this to my attention.)

Opposing Counsel: States AMS Motorcycle's breach of injunction. DJNK: Acknowledges breach but overlooks.

Opposing Counsel: JH refused to pay for ACE Assessors' inspection.
DJNK: Agrees.
JH: Admits my part of inspection cost was paid for.*

*An email was sent to ACE Assessors protesting the dubious nature of Mr Lynn's interaction with the motorcycle prior to payment. I paid the fee in good faith - to honour the process, NOT by consenting to the report hence my efforts proving during the hearing that Mr Lynn had falsified his claim that the tank was free from defects & fit for purpose.

Opposing Counsel: JH to cover 100% of Laguna Motorcycles' legal costs. DJNK: Agrees. DJNK states JH not liable for VAT applied to Laguna Motorcycles' legal costs. (VAT non deductible pre sales or services invoicing in UK – this remark was suspicious & I feel was in the interests of keeping the cost within the realms of the limitations of the claim amount.)

DJNK: Requests final comment from JH. JH (despondent): Academic, must file for bankruptcy.


General Order of Judgement form (District Judge Savage - as detailed above, ruled in favour of consumer regarding transmission failure:



General Order of Judgement form (Nadeem Khan):

The "Seal" is mechanically printed - NOT stamped & NOT embossed. The Seal is requisite evidence of sworn oath of office.
The word "seal" is obscured by the image of the crown thus not legible.
No wet ink signature - this document could have been issued by any entity in possession of the original file source code & edited accordingly.
The printed stamp states "The County Court" & not "Worcester County Court" as per previous judgment form (above) from Worcester County Court. Nadeem Khan's general order of judgment states "at the County Court at Worcester" both top & bottom. Although the addresses are the same, "In/At the County Court at Worcester" and arbitrary, intangible fiction - the schizoid alter ego of the corporeal "WORCESTER COUNTY COURT".
I believe that County Court orders are not binding however this document was conceived & engineered to manufacture consent via coercion. It possesses no legal nor lawful veracity & as with Mr. Lynn's manufactured work of fiction is wholly untenable. The documentation makes a mockery of whatever integrity & authenticity remain in our increasingly toxic justice system:



Nadeem Khan was informed via Mr. Lynn's report (work of fiction) that his interaction with the motorcycle had occurred at KTM Sportmotorcycles Ltd UK were in possession of the motorcycle - obviously the return of the motorcycle on my part was impossible as I had rejected it.

For reference - MOD Signed & sealed indenture:



Seal photographed for definition & clarity - clearly conveys the relief of the embossed seal. This is a government issued document & I expect the same signed, wet ink signature proving liability of the issuer & accompanied by an embossed seal representing the court of origin - NOT the pseudo faux court order I have received above:






“Against County Court Judge Nadeem Khan for rubber-stamping everything that led up to the Bankruptcy Petition, even when having been told that the charge was a fraudulent demand.”



”FACT - District Judge Nadeem Khan, was not operating under his Lawful Oath of office that day, therefore any so-called judgements he made that day are NULL and VOID and UNLAWFUL (unless of course he can prove me wrong via a sworn statement of Truth signed under Full Commercial Liability and penalty of Perjury) Until such a time as this happens, it is my solemn belief that he was impersonating a Public Official. It is also my belief that he was perverting the course of Justice and Guilty of Contempt of Court, not to mention Misconduct in Public Office)”

Twitter February 9th 2015 - Nadeem Khan arrested:



Nadeem Khan's conduct was maliciously prejudicial on all counts. I don't believe he would have consented to the invocation pertaining to the seizure of material evidence nor the witness summonsing of Mr. Lynn because my case had to have been crushed. My circumstances are unique insofar that I had published my intent to bring class action against KTM Sportmotorcycle. The layman would simply pursue his or her rights to reject under the Sales of Goods Act and not foment wider cause for concern for the manufacturer. Suspiciously, yet unsurprisingly all of my statute legal rights including the right to a fair hearing and to demonstrably prove with the material evidence presented to the court that Mr. Lynn had falsified his evidence with malicious intent to pervert the course of justice - to KTM Sportmotorcycle's obvious & abundant benefit.

My intuition tells me that Mr. Lynn's conduct was aided and abetted by Mr. Tiller of KTM Sportmotorcycle & that a financial offering incentivised Mr. Lynn's proven (albeit idiotic attempt) to shroud the truth of the circumstances in a cloak of falsehoods & deception. At the very least Mr. Lynn portrays himself as the archetypal useful idiot & I'm somewhat grateful that Mr. Lynn is clearly not the "sharpest tool in the box."

Nadeem Khan was well within his capacity to order a stay of proceedings in the interests of a fair hearing. His conduct raises suspicions of unscrupulous corruption.


Additional:

Excerpts taken from following:

Acceptance of Rejection

Although the case was decided on the basis of Clegg and s.35(4-6) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the District Judge also dealt (obiter) with the issue of ‘acceptance of rejection’. In his judgment, the principle in s.35(1)(b) of the Sale of Goods Act could be applied in reverse, when considering whether a seller has accepted a buyer's rejection of goods.

The Defendant had carried out repairs without Mr Bowes’ authority. In doing this, they had acted in a manner inconsistent with Mr Bowes' ownership, thereby accepting that the car had been rejected. They were bound by their acceptance of Mr Bowes’ rejection, even if he had not in fact been entitled to reject the car.

This principle of ‘acceptance of rejection’ could potentially be very effective where traders carry out unauthorised repairs after a consumer intimates rejection (and especially where this jeopardises the chance of obtaining an independent expert report).

The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, is derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003. This reverses the burden of proof so that if goods go faulty within six months after purchase it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.

during the first six months:

The consumer returns the goods in the first six months from the date of sale and requests a repair or replacement or a partial refund. In that case, the consumer does not have to prove the goods were faulty at the time of sale. It is assumed that they were. If the retailer does not agree, it is for the retailer to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale. This comes from Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003.


Summary:

All JH responses were clear, concise, truthful & precisely conveyed.
DJNK opted for less qualified SJE.
DJNK dismissed every point brought by JH.
AMS Motorcycles Ltd breached injunction (no penalty as yet imposed by DJNK)
A.C.E Assessors' breach of instruction (no penalty as yet imposed by DJNK)
I assumed A.C.E Assessors would be present at hearing - I attended hearing with tools to demonstrate tank defect, to challenge A.C.E Assessor's breach of instruction, alleged fraudulent claim the tank was refastened easily & ultimately to refute his claim that tank was fit for purpose.
I requested that KTM have the gumption to deliver the motorcycle to court – it wasn't.
2x SD.net witness statements detailing fuel tank ill fitment & material failure & 6x SD.net witness questionnaires (agreeing steel tanks would eliminate known issues with Superduke PA6 Nylon fuel tanks) dismissed by DJNK.
Tank fitted at time of rejection was not of satisfactory quality, was not free from minor defects & was not fit for purpose.


Conclusion:

The 1st instruction received from Mr. Kirwan was to retrieve the motorcycle. Doing so, I would have re-entered myself into the contract. Had I returned the motorcycle to Laguna Motorcycles myself, the outcome would have been the same (this would have been unreasonable - Laguna Motorcycles Ltd ignored my emails, they received my letter of rejection & I was not prepared to deliver the motorcycle from Worcestershire to Kent at my own expense): my rejection wouldn't have been accepted, the tank replaced again & consequently a brand new tank would have been inspected. If I had taken return of the motorcycle, my 6 month passage of time would have elapsed & (at the time I believed) my right to reject would have evaporated. I would also have accepted return of goods (specifically: the replaced fuel tank) thus accepted the change of fuel tank. I did not buckle to the increasingly intimidating storage charges sent by AMS Motorcycles Ltd. My ultimatum to Black Horse that I wouldn't accept the motorcycle back if it were to be collected preliminarily cemented my rejection & Black Horse's acceptance of my rejection. Threatening Black Horse under the Fraud 2006 Act obviously did not deter the motives implemented in order to quash my rejection under fraudulent & criminal pretences.

The absence of CPR compliance in respect to Mr. Montgomery's report was deliberately supressed by Black Horse Ltd. No application was made to strike out Mr. Montgomery's report on behalf of Black Horse (or my defence for that matter), as such I walked, unsuspectingly into an ambush. Efforts were made to guarantee I didn't bare witness to the replaced fuel tank fitted by AMS Motorcycles Ltd & that a misleading report be manufactured to occult the illegitimacy of AMS Motorcycles' actions.

AMS Motorcycles Ltd's representation of events was an outright lie, Mr. Lynn's report on behalf of ACE Assessors was manufactured & contains nothing but fabricated, fraudulent evidence. Mr. Lynn abused his responsibility to act with impartiality & honesty whom ignored simple instructions, tampered with the mounting assembly (lower bush omission), supplied misleading photos, cross threaded a bolt - alleging it was wound easily by hand & suppressed the meta data conducive to establishing the chronology of the photography in order to provide a misleading report. It's totally unsurprising that (given that I am best qualified to cast judgement on the situation) I was blocked at all levels from attending the inspection as I would have identified the imposter fuel tank fitted by AMS Motorcycles Ltd instantly & Mr. Lynn would have been rendered incapable of (allegedly) refastening the fuel tank bolt by hand under my strict supervision because the task is physically impossible. Mr. Lynn cannot disprove my allegations without recreating his interactions in the interests of defending his version of events. Mr. Lynn will not oblige to re-enact his inspection as he has claimed to achieve a feat that is in actuality, physically impossible thus Mr. Lynn cannot claim professional negligence based on these grounds alone.


The motorcycle is still in circulation:
2011 KTM 990 Superduke R
VRM: GN12 FMD



The decision of Nadeem Khan hinged solely on the sentence “tank is fit for purpose” that stemmed from a manufactured report that recklessly attempted to disguise the fact that the tank inspected was an imposter & also defective. Nadeem Khan operated a sequestered hearing - barring witness presence & appointed a dishonest person whom obfuscated facts critical to determining a valid representation of the facts, exonerating those guilty of criminal conduct whilst abusing the rights of litigants in person. Nadeem Khan exploited my right to self representation (as I could no longer afford legal representation) - blatantly took the reigns & guided the hearing in Black Horse's favour which includes events prior to the hearing itself. Namely selecting Mr Philip Lynn of ACE Assessors whom had refrained from impartiality & operated fully in a deceptive manner favouring the position of Black Horse & KTM Sportmotorcycle. Nadeem Khan rejected my request to bring forth my witnesses simply to prevent 3rd party witness to a phoney court session. They expected me to acknowledge Mr. Lynn's manufactured report as fact which I had proven to be fraudulent.

Black Horse defaulted my credit rating 15th May 2013 – I did not default on the agreement, the fuel tank was defective thus the motorcycle was legitimately rejected. Black Horse have unlawfully injured my credit rating:



I owe a massive debt of gratitude to all witnesses & SD.net for your support, however all contributions were prejudicially & discriminately dismissed by DJNK.


Bottom Line:

My efforts to enforce rejection were correct and this sequence of events have been unlawfully manipulated to quash my rejection - facilitated in part by Nadeem Khan. Furthermore Laguna Motorcycles have attempted (via debt collectors) to recover legal costs via debt collectors purporting to be "High Court Enforcement". This amounts to attempted burglary (2 x counts of).

By releasing the motorcycle in good faith & trusting AMS Motorcycles to behave in a professional capacity, I have exposed myself to multiple acts of unlawful conduct on the part of AMS Motorcycles & ACE Assessors. My personal photography proves irrefutably that the fuel tank's base material demonstrated an inherently adverse & unacceptable reaction to the fuel. Moreover, the difference in moulding inconsistency can be determined from ACE Assessor's internal tank photo & confirms fully that AMS Motorcycles replaced the tank while the motorcycle was in their possession between January 8th - January 23rd 2013. The fuel tank fitted had evidently expanded beyond its design parameter & Mr Lynn falsified his statement in claiming he refastened the fuel tank bolt easily by hand additionally stating that no signs of swelling were present - proven to be patently false.

When prosecuting, I will pursue the invocation of Mr. Lynn undertaking a polygraph in the event that the material evidence had been destroyed:



Bernie Tiller @ KTM UK on 01280 709 500. Inform him that your 990 Superduke fuel tank has expanded & that it will no longer fit. You'll either be told this is "due to a blocked breather" (rigid plastic fuel tanks DO NOT inflate like balloons) or "It sounds as though someone removed the fuel tank when the engine's still hot." I reiterate: this statement is submission of the fact that the fuel tanks when exposed to thermal heat soak expand beyond their design parameters & are therefore defective in nature.

KTM have issued a recall for suspected compromised threaded inserts on the polymer tanks fitted to their 2014 1290 Superduke. Reported leaks have occurred due to this defect. I had expected KTM to have benefitted from my research efforts thereby selecting an improved PA6 Nylon compound for their 1290 Superduke fuel tanks & yet they failed to do so:

Ouch! Hate to say it but going there without legal representation was always going to make you easy prey. But I'm sure you knew that. It is a joke though as the class action case in the US was won but fighting an individual with limited funds was going to be an easy target for them.

The whole thing sucks!!

I hope your next move starts things moving the right way for you.

If you do have to go bankrupt it can be all over in a year, might not be as awful as it sounds.

Good luck.

http://www.ktmforum.co.uk/rc8-superbike ... etrol.html

No comfort at all but a number of rc8's have suffered problems. Here's the latest.

Skip to post #1 and #55.

Thanks guys.

I'll have to go down Mr. Durkin's route & see if anyone can help me appeal. I'd prefer not to go bankrupt. The really sad part is that I was £10k into a £15k website, so bankruptcy is best avoided if I can. So much for embracing the entrepreneurial spirit. Black Horse & KTM have contributed seamlessly to crushing the little guy. You can see now why I'm so “annoyed” but I haven't thrown in the towel just yet.

I'll contact Girard Gibbs & politely ask the cost paid by Jonas Sugarman to bring class action. If the 1290 tanks are holding up & ATL (Aero Tec Laboratories) have confirmed they formulated a compliant compound that will hold up then at least this (option 2) looks to be the most sensible path to go down - if steel tanks are to be ruled out that is.



I'm wondering who would be prepared to contribute to the cost of class action?

WOW , i can't imagine the time and life that you must have put towards the case , Knowing what you know now and mentioning in your reflection the things you would have done differently.
Shouldn't you just roll a fat one and move on to the next challenge
Life's too short

Life's too short to be walked over, so no.

Jim,

Thanks for taking the time to post this up, I have been waiting to hear how things went for you. Very sorry to hear of your disappointment and what appears to be an unfair ruling in court.

These are some complex commercial contract issues. Any UK law students out there that can help you with some research if you do decide to go forward? The acceptance of rejection theory seems like it could get some traction.

I admire your fighting spirit, and it is heroic that you have refused to back down. It is totally understandable that this has become an emotional issue, but I hope you are able to separate your emotional involvement from the objective mindset that you need to examine these issues. The legal costs have now dwarfed the original damages. It sounds like any win in the future is still going to be a loss because of costs incurred already. Is it worth an appeal?

Best of luck in whatever you decide. I'm sure that friends, family, and legal counsel have asked you to "let it go, it's just a motorcycle." I can see both side of it, they have a point and so do you.

Best regards, and as others have said, life is short- enjoy what you have!

Forest

Hi Forest,

I've found a pro bono law charity that may be able to help with an appeal.

I don't mind being constructively criticised for refusing to let this go however I'm going to be chased for opposing legal fees which I won't be paying. Ultimately I'm not paying upwards if £40k for a motorcycle I'll never own. I can't just bury my head in the sand, apathy is not an option. I know I won't recover my losses but I have to see this through.

I believe AMS were dishonest in their report & I believe they changed the tank also. These serious allegations potentially amount to contempt of court & perverting the course of justice. It all started with AMS & they're not getting off the hook that easily.

The ktmforum.co.uk link proves the manifestation of this problem is widening in the UK & something has to be done about it.

I have good job lined up which is a load off my mind but I also need closure. I owe it to myself & it would be a privilege to help everyone else out in the process, even if it's to my detriment.

If I give up now, they win & it's all been for nothing.

Thanks dude

Dont know if it will help your appeal but you are welcome to take my RC8 tank which has clear evidence of blistering and paint damage. I dont have the bike anymore so cant tell if it has distorted but it was definitely damaged from within by fuel stored it tank.

If I were you I would be trying to get the story into the press. MCN and bike magazines may not carry the story as they are dependent on Motorcycle manufacturers for advertising but you could probably get regional press and maybe national press involved with a nasty Goliath crushes little guy type story. I would pitch to the consumer affairs tv programmes like Watchdog ,Dont get done get Dom (or whatever that one is called).

If nothing else they may appeal to KTM / Black Horse on your behalf for a goodwill reudction in the costs sought. Companies like KTM and Black Horse that are dependent on the public's perception of them will likely be more afraid of this approach than any litigation or appeal you can bring.

Sorry to hear how it has gone for you. I will drop you a pm with some of the tactics recommended to me when I had the problem with MAN trucks.

To be honest Luke the report didn't add up i.e., the tank was changed. As the bike was moved to KTM UK (no doubt to get it far away from myself before inspection) they also become liable i.e., complicit.

Thinking back that the 1st tank was changed due to expansion (receipt stating mount separation) then I have grounds on the first tank alone based on the Honest John content.

Contempt of court hopefully adds weight to my side of things. If a reduction was offered, it would be thrown back at them.

Sounds a bit hard line but fair. I just hope I can get something going. Mr. Durkin did & like you said, a lot of negative publicity wouldn't be welcome by either Black Horse nor KTM.

Jim,

How was it that you took the bike to AMS? Did you do so with the express permission of Laguna and Black Horse or make any kind of reservation on the matter? I don't know if counsel for the other side argued this point however if the goods were taken anywhere but the seller for repair then this in itself is enough for you to have deemed to have accepted the goods.

Should this be the case then such action would also cause the S.48 of the SGA 1979 (if applicable) to fall away as you would have elected to accept the goods and chosen a repair elsewhere.

Did the opposing side oppose your rejection of the bike on the basis of such substantive law or was it on the technical aspects of the bike being fit for purpose etc etc?

Are you saying that the fuel tanks on KTM SDRs had a widespread issue with their fuel tanks that prevented them from holding petrol and functioning as a fuel tank?

LB

1976dc:

Letter of rejection had been sent to both Black Horse & Laguna Motorcycles. I was already aware of the Ducati settlement (which is self explanatory) at that time hence the letter stipulated that the motorcycle had been rejected in its entirety because of the unsatisfactory quality of the fuel tank(s).

Black Horse called requesting that the motorcycle be taken away & inspected by KTM. As the 1st tank had been replaced (incorrectly & returned for rectification) it was established that the motorcycle again go to AMS Motorcycles (AMS only 10 miles away). I challenged Black Horse as to why the motorcycle couldn't be inspected on my premises & why it was myself who was expected to make the collection arrangements. Black Horse insisted KTM inspect the bike but avoided addressing the issue of retention & inspection under my supervision.

Smelling a rat, I wrote to Black Horse requesting they seek my permission in writing to release the motorcycle. I did this to absolve myself from any implication that I was prepared to release & have the motorcycle inspected by my own free will. In the same letter, Black Horse were also advised that the motorcycle wouldn't be accepted back regardless of verdict due to suspicion that the tank would be changed again. I stated in no uncertain terms that my rejection was final. Black Horse obliged by requesting permission in writing from myself to permit the release of the motorcycle.

Note: Other than dehydration to shrink the tank, the bubbles wouldn't disappear by reversion alone. It would have to be replaced to eliminate the internal degradation. The motorcycle was brand new & I was obliged by way of PCP Hire Purchase Agreement that the motorcycle's maintentnance schedule be adhered to. I was not prepared to pay for the protocol whereby the tank must be forced into placed after removal.

I made the collection arrangements. AMS representative remarked at time of collection that they would “fix” it. I retorted that the motorcycle had been rejected.

2 weeks later, AMS called several times to advise collection, I told them that the bike had been rejected. AMS stated in writing that I could not reject the motorcycle to them. Opposing counsel made no point that I hadn't returned the motorcycle to Laguna myself nor had I deemed acceptance by way of repair or replacement.

Laguna failed to act on my intent to reject. They ignored all three emails although I received return receipts that they had been read. The 1st email complained about the growth beyond design limit (with photo).The 2nd email to Laguna proposed that a new tank be treated with Caswell. Caswell treatment hasn't proven to be 100% successful & in the event of failure would annul the mechanical warranty.

At this point in time the decisions I took were with the express intent to prevent exposing myself to the possibility that I had deemed acceptance by way of repair or replacement & to annul any implied personal desire to have the motorcycle removed by way of my own free will. I ensured Black Horse requested my permission in writing to release the motorcycle. I was happy at that time to allow the collection as this would enforce my rejection in principle as I no longer retained possession of the motorcycle.

The return of the motorcycle to the vendor themselves (Laguna), arguably is factually incorrect. My contract of PCP Hire Purchase Agreement was with Black Horse Ltd – not Laguna Motorcycles. Both parties were informed of my intent to reject the motorcycle in its entirety. The return of the motorcycle to Laguna is uncontroversial. Distance selling regulations would argue it was not my responsibility after intimating rejection that I be the one responsible for return. This would have necessitated van hire for the 380 mile round trip plus diesel at my cost & thus be wholly unreasonable.

The report received from Black Horse on behalf of AMS stated no issues were found with the tank.

Had I requested the motorcycle be inspected only & stipulate that no repair nor replacement be conducted, the collection of the motorcycle after inspection by myself would have placed the Burden of Proof upon myself to prove the tank was changed before proving any defect had in actuality existed. No request was made by myself as the motorcycle was rejected outright in its entirety thus reversing the Burden of Proof. Had I collected the motorcycle (as per my 2nd solicitor's proposal over the phone which I rejected instantly) I would have been deemed to have accepted the goods irrespective of what actions AMS may or may not have executed. This is precisely why I comissioned a 3rd party inspection before the motorcycle was formally rejected & collected. Consequently the 3rd party inspection report was not CPR compliant as I learned to my detriment in the hearing itself. Neither solicitors had informed me of this. Had I retaken possession as described in this paragraph I would have been buggered by default by accepting the goods.

As you can hopefully appreciate, I took all precautionary steps to guarantee my rejection was water tight. Note: If the problem arises within the 1st six months it was taken as being present at time of purchase & 5 months had already elapsed. The Queen's speech: Bill of Rights proposes entitlement to provide 1 x opportunity only to rectify/repair. I had provided KTM the opportunity to correct the issue – both tanks were not of satisfactory quality nor free from minor defects. No arguments brought by opposing counsels that 3 x opportunities must be provided to correct/rectify the problem. The motorcycle wasn't inspected before the deposit was paid nor until after the contract had been signed. The first time I saw the motorcycle was at handover. There's no reason for a reasonable person to expect manifestation of manufacturing defects with a brand new vehicle at the time of hand over.

Opposing counsel had no need to cite principles of acceptance in the Sales & Supply of Goods Act as I don't doubt they were aware of the instigation of the bogus report.

AMS had no contractural obligation to enter proceedings but I believe they replaced the tank, falsified their report & breached their injunction.

This is why I feel I have grounds to pursue appeal & bring civil/criminal charges against AMS for replacing the tank* (perverting the course of justice) & breach of injunction (contempt of Court). KTM UK obliged acceptance of the motorcycle's storage thereby qualifying their complicit behaviour in proceedings.

*The presence of the rubber bush is vital & most certainly common sense to determine tank growth. I believe the omission of the bush by the SJE was deliberate in order to provide a misleading verdict. The interior was confirmed not to have the bubbling on the surface of which the Judge tried & failed to imply directly were present in the fuel itself.

The rejection process is a paradox: How can an individual reject goods if the only absolute to prevent susceptibility of falling foul of corruption/illegality/incompetence is through retention of the very item you're rejecting, ultimately to enforce rescission of contract?!?!?!?!?!?

The above can be interpreted as a loophole, opening up the possibility of abuse to the rights of the consumer & must be addressed at the highest level.

I trusted both solicitors. The 1st was reactive & passive. The 2nd was made aware of vehicle rejection case studies from the first instance & I feel he was simply pushing his own agenda. I've had to figure this out for myself.

I hope this clarifies both my position & my understanding of the law.

Leeroybrown:

You've missed my point somewhat. The bike was brand new, it had to undergo compulsory servicing. The tanks I had witnessed had to be forced into place. Depending on locality, the tanks themselves prove not be compatible with the recommended fuel type (Sticker on 1st tank stated RON 95 Unleaded) in terms of expansion & internal degredation (in my case at least).

You ask will they leak? I speculated in my research thread that KTM may now employ integral steel reinforcing brackets for the fuel pump & rear mounts (akin to Elkamet method). Strategic stiffening will only serve to redirect expansion loads to weaker areas of the tank. Fuel level sender orifice: although smaller than the fuel pump flange & not structural, are these reinforced also & in time, impervious to warping?

The motorcycle I acquired was not fitted with the support ram, eliminating the stresses imparted on the inserts as a result. Has anyone else noticed that the 1290 tank is a slide on affair & is no longer a hinged/semi rigid design with support ram? Eliminating the cost of the ram could be argued but doesn't detract from the fact that the configuration has been totally overhauled.

Do they function as a fuel tank? Fuel tanks are not interference fit components & I would prefer not to find out the hard way if the tank(s) were to leak. My inauguration into engineering was in machining & helicopter maintenance. I don't condone the material specification/method of manufacture for the final product to be deemed as adequate, free from minor defects, of reasonable quality & fit for purpose for the role it's intended to serve. Additionally, Ducati, BMW & MotoGuzzi have lost faith in the polyamide fuel tank & as such are reverting back to metal tanks.

“The new tank brings with it a superior metal construction that allows for a lighter tank along with a greater fuel capacity.” Again, I have already argued the twofold benefits of increased material integrity & increased capacity by use of metal in construction.



You are all (or should be) already aware that the 2014 RC390 is supplied with a steel tank.

If proactivity is a crime, I'm guilty as charged. Lock me up & throw away the key.

Jim,

Anything I type here is not to be relied upon in any way and your must seek dedicated advice, which I'm sure you are doing.

I'm up to my eyeballs at the moment and will be for some time. I'll come back to you on this however not for a while as it'll take some thought. Perverting the course of justice and in some ways breach of an injunction are well beyond my understanding I'm afraid and they are at best mere distractions in your case I would say. Perverting is a criminal act and takes a completely different track.

I pick up a few points from your post. It's difficult to get an understanding on this from your précis however I think there may be at least one fatal flaw in your interpretation I'm afraid. It is in connection not with technical issues of the bike or the principles of acceptance / rejection but with something in line with your comments in one of your previous posts on the judgement and your comments regarding the disregarding of the SGA 1979 s.48 and what you say the threshold for the rejection became - I.e. fitness for purpose.

Am I right in thinking there was an SJE?

What did the SJE say of the tank?
Since he was an SJE I assume you consented to his appointment?
On what grounds would you appeal?

1976dc

I won't indulge too much time dealing in rhetoric. All of the answers to your questions have already been answered in this thread. I'm happy though to briefly elaborate on the SJE, I only approved of the highest qualified individual, which stands to reason & not the Court approved, lesser qualified individual. Due to spiralling costs, I had to relent.

Objective comments/questions are always welcome but your line(s) of examination with regards to highlighting flaws in my conduct/reasoning that relate directly to the series of events/circumstances that have occured appear to be taken out of context. I'm under the impression you're analysing in isolation only, this will only limit the depth scope of understanding that's available. Speculating that suspected unscrupulous/illegal behaviour is unrelated to the rejection itself is distorting your appreciation of “cause & effect”.

As it stands, brand new goods that didn't conform to contract were rejected i.e., what yourself & a reasonable person would expect (I've yet to read a comment from an individual who condones applying force to install their fuel tank) & I was denied the opportunity to verify the legitimacy of the goods in questions before assessment. Would any reasonable person be satisfied that the proof of their reasoning has seemingly disappeared or been obscured?

Hence; Expansion beyond design limit: not of satisfactory quality & not free from minor defects. Rear mount separation: not of satisfactory quality & not free from minor defects. Internal degration: not of satisfactory quality & not free from minor defects. The fundamental reason: Inherent incompatibility with recommended fuel type thus: not fit for purpose.

I'm not sure how many more times I will have to insist on repeating myself.

No line of provocation will result in an admission on my behalf that my decision to reject & the actions I took nor my interpretation of S.48 were flawed in any way, shape or form. I'll have to see what grounds I have for an appeal. I have nothing to lose by making enquiries.

I can't grasp the mindset of someone who admits their current lack of understanding, missing very succinct points in the process but is very quick to point out “fatal flaws”. Seems highly contradictory wouldn't you agree? Please take heed of your own suggestion & re-read this entire thread.

my 2 cents:
PA gastank is rubbish, not suitable for modern gas
mine is expanded and showing lumps
next bike no KTM, that's it
again, thank you for your efford Jim

Hi Jim,

You are understandably stressed but I would go a little easier on 1976dc if I were you.

Far from being a critic it sounds to me like he is a legal professional who is offering to apply his detailed knowledge of relevant law / case law in a way that would assist you. If somebody with proper knowledge is offering genuine insight into your situation this is infinitely more valuable to you than any number of sympathisers or well-wishers offering moral support. Certainly in your situation I would value unbiased professional opinion above all else at this stage.

If your hostile response hasn't put him off already you might want to PM him and consider what he has to say carefully.

Good luck.

Hello people,

I hope you're all doing well & enjoying the summer. I've got the Hornet back on the road - damn it's good to be riding again.

I've been adding bits & pieces to the 1st post over the last few months, mainly collating & organising evidence. The court order came through but I've not complied & they haven't bothered chasing me for it. Not that they'll have any success in doing so. I've found a law firm whom I may be able to depend upon to actually do their jobs properly this time round.

On the plus side my (our as in MEMFast's) rivet nut hand tool has been NATO approved & we're just waiting for a stock number. Ironic isn't it? I can design a tool that will contribute to this nation's defence maintenance program but I've been stiffed & betrayed by my own countrymen. Still, they'll get what's coming to them & I look forward to bringing the pain. In abundance.

Peace dudes, ride safely.

Would anyone be so kind to assist please? Please refer to 1st post.

I need photos taken, with the front mount bolt & assembly correctly installed from two perspectives:

1. As per photos 1.01/1.02 (vertical - top down)
2. As per photo 1.03 (perpendicular) - I need the photo taken precisely from the side & not on the p*ss as per 1.04.

If anyone is willing to help, please pm the code so that I can embed the photos & update the 1st post. I need photos of correct installation that provides the precise level of detail to justify my comparisons & criticisms. I will exercise discretion & won't mention the contributors name however the code will link to the users' cloud account so email me instead: [email protected] & I'll upload them to my account.

I would also be grateful for permission to duplicate as I will need to convert the comparison into a document for legal purposes.

Thanks,

Jim

EDIT: IF PHOTO 1.04 COULD BE DUPLICATED, IT WOULD SERVE AS A DEFINITIVE COMPARISON.