A FARNHAM car dealer allegedly mocked a Grayshott couple and avoided a legal writ after selling them a car which broke down shortly afterwards. These are the claims of Kate and Keith Barrett, who also claim that PGI Farnham Ltd ceased trading before shifting funds, thereby avoiding the payment of more than £4,000, despite an order from Aldershot and Farnham small claims court. Mr and Mrs Barrett purchased the Audi A4 Avant estate car for £2,995 on February 9, 2005, from the PGI Farnham Guildfor Road showroom. "We said we wanted reliability. That was the most important thing to us, and the vehicle was sold as a prestigious, low-mileage car for its age, with a full Audi service history," said Mrs Barrett. "We also had a an HPI report undertaken, and one of the things specified from the HPI was a brand new MOT and service, which PGI did themselves. They stamped the service book, which included a check of all the locks, and it had an RAC warranty of up to £1,000," she added. Yet after driving the vehicle from the forecourt, there was already a fault, said Mrs Barrett. "When we got home we realised the driver's door lock was so stiff that I was frightened the key would break. It was rusted over and the doors wouldn't lock. She said that when they went for a test drive, the doors were always unlocked, so the fault didn't come to light. Worse news was to come after 10 weeks of "uneventful motoring", as the car broke down on the A3, and was duly returned to PGI by means of a towtruck. PGI then called the Barretts, to inform them that the oil pump had failed, causing the engine to seize, and the turbo was also destroyed. They quoted repairs at a cost of £3,495. "I was horrified," said Mrs Barrett. "We had to borrow £3,000 to buy the car, which is a lot of money for us, and didn't expect it to wrong so quickly. "We were then informed that our warranty was useless as it only covered £1,000, but only on receipt of the full cost of repairing the car, which we could not afford. "We asked for PGI to meet us halfway, which with the £1,000 warranty would have made it more bearable, but they wouldn't budge." They say they were forced to leave the car in situ at the PGI workshop indefinitely, and waited a year before further developments. "We didn't realise we had any comeback at all. Basically it was left that when we had saved up enough money we would get it fixed, or if not, leave it and they got rid of it. They didn't have a problem with storing it," said Mrs Barrett. This left the car "partially dismantled and open to the elements; not undercover at all," according to Mrs Barrett. Then she was approached in a shopping centre in March 2006 by an RAC man who asked if she wanted breakdown cover. "I said 'I'm not happy with the RAC', and told him that the warranty on my car wasn't worth anything. "The guy said sorry and that I should contact the CAB, even though it was a secondhand car." Investigations lead the Barretts to discover that under the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, "any fault becoming evident during the first six months after purchase is deemed to have been there at the time of sale". It is the trader's responsibility to prove otherwise, according to the regulations. Letters were then sent to the managing director of PGI, David Wilce, stating his company's responsibility for repair, replacement or compensation. Nine days later, Mr Wilce asked Mrs Barrett to contact him after sending a compliments slip from PGI Volvo Estates Limited. "I said 'Are you not going to go somewhere towards having this fixed?' He said 'No, not a penny' and that he was not prepared to give us a replacement car. "He hung up on me and said I wasn't interested in a solution. When I rang back, we came to an arrangement where he promised he'd fix the car. "He would put in a secondhand engine and new oil pumps and give the vehicle an MOT. I thought it unlikely, given the car would need a new battery, tyres brake pads and headlight, but we sat out the next six weeks. "We heard nothing for nine weeks, and wrote again, and eventually got a reply, dated August 21, 2006 from Gary Southam, managing director." In it, PGI stated it was "unable to store the vehicle any longer and will shortly be arranging to have the vehicle delivered to the above address by transporter". The letter stated: "The vehicle will be delivered dismantled, but in a moveable state. You should ensure that the vehicle is not kept on a road while the licence is expired," it added. "We had nowhere to store the vehicle. We live in a narrow private access road. I phoned the DVLA and offered to pay road tax, but as we didn't have an MOT, they declined. Eventually, the car was scrapped," she lamented. Undeterred, the Barretts continued their quest for compensation, a figure estimated at £8,000 by Mrs Barrett, including legal fees and the purchase of the motorbike that had to be purchased for her husband to get to work. On February 20 of this year, the case was heard before Aldershot and Farnham County Court, and PGI was ordered to pay £4,195.12 However, PGI Farnham had ceased trading and Mr and Mrs Barrett have still not been recompensed. "We were informed by the court that their defence was a letter saying they ceased trading on July 31 2006 and so that was their defence. The court sent them an order asking to explain the circumstances they ceased trading. "They didn't. They just gave a date saying that the company had deregistered with no debts or liabilities on that date. But they are still using that name, with no apparent changes to their operation." In response to Mrs Barrett's claims, Mr Wilce told The Herald: "Mrs Barrett bought a cheap £3,000 car, which she had a fault on. She had an RAC warranty, but chose to leave it in the workshop for over a year. "We offered to repair it for her, but she thought we could put a brand new engine into a 10-year-old car. I don't know really what she expected. "I don't know what she did to the car - her husband blew the engine up. Her husband is a motorbike enthusiast. He probably likes to rev the engines." Regarding the fact that PGI has avoided paying the compensation ordered by the court, Mr Wilce replied: "We didn't really fight the case. She was fighting a company that had basically closed down as a director had left. "I told the court that the company ceased trading and we didn't really fight it. We didn't do anything wrong."