Dealers, watch out for this guy
Discussion
My 10p.......... the dealer should not expect to keep £250 in 15 hrs of holding, that's taking the piss!! The dealer wouldn't like if if it was done to him/her.
I would have left a £50 deposit and he could keep that amount in the event of changing my mind. I would not however leave a deposit on a car over the phone without seeing it first, if it sells, then it sells.
If I was sure on the car having see and driven it then I would be happy to leave £250 until I got the balance sorted.
I would have left a £50 deposit and he could keep that amount in the event of changing my mind. I would not however leave a deposit on a car over the phone without seeing it first, if it sells, then it sells.
If I was sure on the car having see and driven it then I would be happy to leave £250 until I got the balance sorted.
My (patchy) understanding of the law on this one is that the dealer cannot keep the deposit unless he can prove out of pocket expenses incurred.
Given that it's pretty hard to prove that he could have sold the car for figure "x" and didn't because of the deposit securing it, and then later had to take figure "y" because that's all he could then get for it (ie prove a loss between "x" and "y"), and it's unlikely he incurred other costs as a result of the car being off the market for a less than a day, I'd have thought he would be on a sticky wicket with this one.
Absolutely not condoning what the customer did, a deal's a deal and all that, but I think if he'd gone legal the dealer would have to have refunded anyway.
As I say, my knowledge is patchy on this, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong?
Given that it's pretty hard to prove that he could have sold the car for figure "x" and didn't because of the deposit securing it, and then later had to take figure "y" because that's all he could then get for it (ie prove a loss between "x" and "y"), and it's unlikely he incurred other costs as a result of the car being off the market for a less than a day, I'd have thought he would be on a sticky wicket with this one.
Absolutely not condoning what the customer did, a deal's a deal and all that, but I think if he'd gone legal the dealer would have to have refunded anyway.
As I say, my knowledge is patchy on this, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong?
Come on, let's be fair.
The dealer has hardly suffered any losses, the transaction was cancelled the very next day so they could easily have agreed to the refund.
I would also argue that a deposit isn't in itself fundamentally non refundable. That would have had to be made clear to the purchaser at the time of payment, and even then it could easily be argued that it is contra to the fair contracts legialation. Really, the dealer should only seek to recover any losses from the deposit and refund the balance.
The dealer has hardly suffered any losses, the transaction was cancelled the very next day so they could easily have agreed to the refund.
I would also argue that a deposit isn't in itself fundamentally non refundable. That would have had to be made clear to the purchaser at the time of payment, and even then it could easily be argued that it is contra to the fair contracts legialation. Really, the dealer should only seek to recover any losses from the deposit and refund the balance.
I hve read before that dealers are only entitled to keep reasoanble costs. In many cases this means the deposit should be returned in full providing the dealer hasn't paid out for it.
Can't say I agree with it. I think is quite fair that is you make a deal, pay a deposit and then break that deal, the deposit is lost. The dealer could have lost other sales because some mupppet wants to mess him about.
The other side of the coin is if the dealer doesn't fufil thier obligations, the buyer should be well within their rights to claim deposit back.
Can't say I agree with it. I think is quite fair that is you make a deal, pay a deposit and then break that deal, the deposit is lost. The dealer could have lost other sales because some mupppet wants to mess him about.
The other side of the coin is if the dealer doesn't fufil thier obligations, the buyer should be well within their rights to claim deposit back.
Ari said:
My (patchy) understanding of the law on this one is that the dealer cannot keep the deposit unless he can prove out of pocket expenses incurred.
Given that it's pretty hard to prove that he could have sold the car for figure "x" and didn't because of the deposit securing it, and then later had to take figure "y" because that's all he could then get for it (ie prove a loss between "x" and "y"), and it's unlikely he incurred other costs as a result of the car being off the market for a less than a day, I'd have thought he would be on a sticky wicket with this one.
Absolutely not condoning what the customer did, a deal's a deal and all that, but I think if he'd gone legal the dealer would have to have refunded anyway.
As I say, my knowledge is patchy on this, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong?
I think as far as the wording of the law goes, this is correct. I'd be interested in knowing if anybody has ever successfully sued for the return of a deposit in a similar circumstance though.Given that it's pretty hard to prove that he could have sold the car for figure "x" and didn't because of the deposit securing it, and then later had to take figure "y" because that's all he could then get for it (ie prove a loss between "x" and "y"), and it's unlikely he incurred other costs as a result of the car being off the market for a less than a day, I'd have thought he would be on a sticky wicket with this one.
Absolutely not condoning what the customer did, a deal's a deal and all that, but I think if he'd gone legal the dealer would have to have refunded anyway.
As I say, my knowledge is patchy on this, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong?
As a dealer, I have been on the sharp end of this, customers placing deposits and shaking hands then changing their mind overnight.
Yes it's a b
h, yes it gives you the hump, but I've never kept a deposit, just made people feel like st for doing it and refused to do it unless they come in and explain eye to eye why they want it back.
Yes it's a b
h, yes it gives you the hump, but I've never kept a deposit, just made people feel like st for doing it and refused to do it unless they come in and explain eye to eye why they want it back.
pistonpie said:
lol...what do you think a deposit is for...?
Do you think that a deposit is forfeited in the event that the sale doesnt proceed? Why do you think that? This perpetuates the 'retained deposit' myth, but it really isnt that simple.I believe that the dealer can only keep the entire £250 if it was given on the understanding that it would be forfeited if the sale didnt go ahead, but even that has to depend on the car being fit and as described.
englisharcher said:
Butter Face said:
and refused to do it unless they come in and explain eye to eye why they want it back.
How would you feel if, instead of doing that, the buyer called his bank, and basically told them that you had committed fraud by using his card details without authorisation?On the slim chance that happened, I would be backed up by the directors of my business, there are steps I need to follow before taking someones money and they wouldn't let our company be accused of wrongdoing.
Oh, and obviously its a procedural thing that any deposit being returned has to be signed for by the customer, hence them having to come in.
What sort of a massive chimp whacks a 250 quid deposit down on 2.5k car he's never seen anyway? What a stupid thing to do.
That said was it was a trader and he was placing the deposit over the phone it's surely covered by the Distance Selling Act anyway and as such is refundable, however stupid the buyer was.
That said was it was a trader and he was placing the deposit over the phone it's surely covered by the Distance Selling Act anyway and as such is refundable, however stupid the buyer was.
Rick101 said:
I hve read before that dealers are only entitled to keep reasoanble costs. In many cases this means the deposit should be returned in full providing the dealer hasn't paid out for it.
Can't say I agree with it. I think is quite fair that is you make a deal, pay a deposit and then break that deal, the deposit is lost. The dealer could have lost other sales because some mupppet wants to mess him about.
The other side of the coin is if the dealer doesn't fufil thier obligations, the buyer should be well within their rights to claim deposit back.
But that's unfair - an "uneven" contract.Can't say I agree with it. I think is quite fair that is you make a deal, pay a deposit and then break that deal, the deposit is lost. The dealer could have lost other sales because some mupppet wants to mess him about.
The other side of the coin is if the dealer doesn't fufil thier obligations, the buyer should be well within their rights to claim deposit back.
You want the buyer to forfeit the deposit if he pulls out, so he loses £250. But if the dealer cancels he just shrugs and gives the deposit back so doesn't lose anything. How is that fair?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff