Volkswagen witholding some money for a deposit that should be returned?

TiTheRev

Surely the Motability deal is between the consumer and Motability, not the Dealer and OP? The renewal date would not be a consideration for the selling dealer, because they are just offering the car. The payment is settled by Motability when the deal is struck.

Flyboy152

TiTheRev wrote: »

Surely the Motability deal is between the consumer and Motability, not the Dealer and OP? The renewal date would not be a consideration for the selling dealer, because they are just offering the car. The payment is settled by Motability when the deal is struck.

It doesn't matter, the dealer has a commitment to Motability, as their agent, to act with care and skill when selling products on their behalf. All of this is covered in the Motability training. The dealership's Motability accreditation is based on the training given to the dealer and the nominated sales executive(s). If they don't act in accordance with the procedures, set out by Motability, they risk losing that accreditation.

TiTheRev

I hear whay you're saying Flyboy, but I don't see how any of that could have been foreseen by the dealer? It was the OP who had the renewal issue, and the salesman had done all that was asked of him. He will be annoyed that he's lost a sale (and his commission!), and he now has an extra car in stock, specific to the OP's requirements.

The dealer is the loser all ends up here, and to claim back the £51 he's lost on the auction price is not unfair, or beyond what is expected of them. It was the OP who lost him the sale, not anything they did.

NeverAgain_2

The OP was happy with £2,500 for his car.

The dealer has sold the car for him, done all the leg work, settled the finance, guaranteed a bank transfer payment, at a 'cost' of £51.

If someone offered to do all that for me for fifty quid, I'd be tempted.

The OP should be grateful and bung the salesman a tenner for his trouble.

Flyboy152

TiTheRev wrote: »

I hear whay you're saying Flyboy, but I don't see how any of that could have been foreseen by the dealer? It was the OP who had the renewal issue, and the salesman had done all that was asked of him. He will be annoyed that he's lost a sale (and his commission!), and he now has an extra car in stock, specific to the OP's requirements.

The dealer is the loser all ends up here, and to claim back the £51 he's lost on the auction price is not unfair, or beyond what is expected of them. It was the OP who lost him the sale, not anything they did.

In order for a proposal to be submitted, the renewal date must be entered on to the web page. I can only assume that the sales executive didn't do this for some reason. The customer must enter their PIN to access the account for the sales person, in order for them to complete the proposal. So, my guess was, that the OP was not seen by the accredited sales person (probably their day off) but was told, "don't worry, we'll sort everything out later." The "ordinary" sales executive then goes to the sales manager and asks for a price on the part-exchange, he is given a price and the OP is told that the best thing to do is to give them the car now, to avoid three book drops (three months) before delivery. The crux of the matter is going to be, did the dealer agree with the OP, In writing, that the part-exchange value was only subject to what price could be achieved at auction.

Flyboy152

NeverAgain wrote: »

The OP was happy with £2,500 for his car.

The dealer has sold the car for him, done all the leg work, settled the finance, guaranteed a bank transfer payment, at a 'cost' of £51.

If someone offered to do all that for me for fifty quid, I'd be tempted.

All of this irrelevant. If the dealer promised a price for the car, they promised a price for the car. It is not the OP's fault if that car subsequently did not fetch what was expected by the dealer. The did not sell the car to the auction house, they sold it to the dealer. Would you say to a dealer, "oh, here's my car, sell it for whatever price you can get?"

The OP should be grateful and bung the salesman a tenner for his trouble.

What, after cocking the whole thing up in the first place, I don't think so, do you?

NeverAgain_2

The service the customer received - the sale of his car and associated admin - is entirely relevant.

Had the dealer done no more than take a cash deposit and refuse to return all of it, the OP may have had a genuine grievance.

My posts have been sincere, but I'm struggling to take this one seriously.

The OP needs to work out the priorities in his life and move on.

Flyboy152

NeverAgain wrote: »

The service the customer received - the sale of his car and associated admin - is entirely relevant.

Had the dealer done no more than take a cash deposit and refuse to return all of it, the OP may have had a genuine grievance.

My posts have been sincere, but I'm struggling to take this one seriously.

It makes no odds, whatsoever, what work the dealer may, or may not have done, it is all about what was agreed. As I asked before, would allow the dealer to have carte blanche over the price.

The OP needs to work out the priorities in his life and move on.

I think that fact that OP needs a Motability car, I would assume that they have their priorities well and truly sorted.

mikey72

I wish I could afford to throw £50 away as a triviality.

Inactive

NeverAgain wrote: »

The OP was happy with £2,500 for his car.

The dealer has sold the car for him, done all the leg work, settled the finance, guaranteed a bank transfer payment, at a 'cost' of £51.

If someone offered to do all that for me for fifty quid, I'd be tempted.

The OP should be grateful and bung the salesman a tenner for his trouble.

But the figure of £51 is only coincidental, it could easily have been far more.

I blame the dealer for their own incompetence.