Deposit paid by Card, cant get refund!!

hkp

Message received:(

lindsaym22

So you paid a deposit, then you couldn´t go through with the transaction because the car went into the workshop? So now you have no car AND no deposit? That really is rubbish. Surely it´s the garage´s fault for puting the sale through too early?

SecretSquirrel88

When I bought my car I had to pay a £500 deposit to hold the car for me, but I never had to sign anything and they said that I could have it back anyway... out of interest what car is it?

bert&ernie

hkp wrote: »

Help
I have paid a deposit on Barclaycard for a car and now a week later can't proceed with the transaction. I have asked the retailer to refund my money, but they refuse. I did sign an invoice that said that deposits were non-refundable, but was lead to believe that this was not legal to hold me to this.
Barclaycard don't want to help because of the 'non refundable invoice'.

Who is right? Do they have the right to hold onto my money?

The retailer hasn't removed any of the advertising for this car, but he has said he put the car into the workshop for some cosmetic work. In my opinion he would have had to do this anyway to sell the car to anyone.

Any advice?

This is a fairly interesting question and probably one that has affected many people. In essence you accepted the sellers terms of sale, but the question is whether or not these terms were fair.

A clause that allows the seller to keep all of your deposit if you cancel seems manifestly unfair because of the following:

1. it is inequitable - there is no provision for a penalty if the seller fails to conclude the sale i.e. if you fail to go through with the sale, you loose your deposit - if the seller pulls he only has to return your deposit.
2. its not proportional - its fixed at the outset and doesn't relate to the sellers actual costs if you fail to go through with the purchase.

Its essentially a penalty clause - I assume your aware of the recent issues over bank charges?

You'll probably experience a lot of MSE members who take the rather simplistic and unhelpful view that "you signed it so you're bound by it". Thankfully it isn't that simple and there are laws to protect consumers from unfair practices.

You may be able to obtain some redress under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. However, doubt you'll get any statutory body to assist with this, so you'll have to take the seller on yourself.

I'd do some research and perhaps seek some professional legal advice - especially if you have free access to a lawyer, perhaps through an insurance policy or union membership etc.

exel1966

Non-refundable deposits are part n parcel of life and have been for years so why would it be manisfestly unfair ? Are you suggesting they are not legally binding ?

Why is there a suggestion that it's unfair ?

What do bank charge penalties have to do with this ?

I think the above suggestions could also be considered simplistic and unhelpful by making many assumptions.

normanmark

bert&ernie wrote: »

This is a fairly interesting question and probably one that has affected many people. In essence you accepted the sellers terms of sale, but the question is whether or not these terms were fair.

A clause that allows the seller to keep all of your deposit if you cancel seems manifestly unfair because of the following:

1. it is inequitable - there is no provision for a penalty if the seller fails to conclude the sale i.e. if you fail to go through with the sale, you loose your deposit - if the seller pulls he only has to return your deposit.
2. its not proportional - its fixed at the outset and doesn't relate to the sellers actual costs if you fail to go through with the purchase.

Its essentially a penalty clause - I assume your aware of the recent issues over bank charges?

You'll probably experience a lot of MSE members who take the rather simplistic and unhelpful view that "you signed it so you're bound by it". Thankfully it isn't that simple and there are laws to protect consumers from unfair practices.

You may be able to obtain some redress under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. However, doubt you'll get any statutory body to assist with this, so you'll have to take the seller on yourself.

I'd do some research and perhaps seek some professional legal advice - especially if you have free access to a lawyer, perhaps through an insurance policy or union membership etc.

You seemed to have missed the bit where by putting the signature to paper is stating you're agreeing to what the terms & conditions say. By that it's assuming that the person signing it understands them terms & conditions, if it doesn't then they shouldn't sign it. It really is as simple as that.

To merely suggest that its unfair & not to actually look at the point of someone didn't actually read the terms & conditions is very naive. However we've gone over ground like this before & i'm sure you think any form of financial transaction is classed as 'unfair practice'.

bert&ernie

exel1966 wrote: »

Non-refundable deposits are part n parcel of life and have been for years so why would it be manisfestly unfair ? Are you suggesting they are not legally binding ?

Why is there a suggestion that it's unfair ?

What do bank charge penalties have to do with this ?

I think the above suggestions could also be considered simplistic and unhelpful by making many assumptions.

My post spells out why I think non-refundable deposits are unfair.

Yes I am suggesting that they may not be legally binding in certain circumstances.

The argument that bank charges are unfair is based on similar principles.

My suggestions are just that - suggestions. I'm questioning the core assumption that a contract is legally binding just because you sign it. You may think its unhelpful for me to question the received wisdom that you appear so comfortable with. However, I would rather be proved wrong than make the same lazy and judgmental assumptions as you.

Oh, and just to make it clear - I'm not a lawyer and I have already suggested that the OP do his own research and consider obtaining professional advice. I certainly don't expect anyone to take anything I say as qualified legal advice. If you disagree with my reasoning, then please feel free to put forward an alternative argument.

bert&ernie

normanmark wrote: »

You seemed to have missed the bit where by putting the signature to paper is stating you're agreeing to what the terms & conditions say. By that it's assuming that the person signing it understands them terms & conditions, if it doesn't then they shouldn't sign it. It really is as simple as that.

To merely suggest that its unfair & not to actually look at the point of someone didn't actually read the terms & conditions is very naive. However we've gone over ground like this before & i'm sure you think any form of financial transaction is classed as 'unfair practice'.

I think it is you thats being naive in your blinkered view that a contract is legally valid just because both parties sign it. You think of a contract as nothing more than an agreement between two entities. You fail to see that this agreement exists within a legal context. The law sets limits on what terms can and should be included within certain types of contract made under certain circumstances.

I don't believe that every financial transaction is classed as unfair practice, but unlike you, I am capable of recognising that unfair practices can occur.

---lee---

I think the garage are stressing the fact that alterations have been made to the car as cooling off and other get outs don't usually apply where the goods are changed to order.

We don't know what the cosmetic work was. It could have been adding a bodykit or painting the car pink etc. Whatever it was could make the car more difficult to sell or reduce it's value etc so the garage may need this to offset against any costs/loss.

harryhound

Cheer up, put it down to experience.

If you were buying a house, you would most probably find you had signed an agreement and paid a non returnable deposit and the seller could later sell the house to another buyer and you would be liable for the difference (loss) due to the lower price agreed with the "second" buyer.

Let the buyer beware - even blind people have to sign on the dotted line.