Motor dealer keeping deposit.

arcon5

If there was no contract stating that the despot was non refundable or any notices at the dealer then yes he is in breach and you can sue for your deposit for breach of contract.

There must be an understanding that any despot can not be refunded,

Why?

You entered into a legally binding contract for the purchase of the car, so why is the dealer in breach of contract? (Forgetting for now the failure to do the cosmetic work as this hasn't bee mentioned in the conversation at this point).

No the seller can not. No contract was signed, he would have problems showing it existed.

He wouldn't have much of a problem proving a contract exists, he would only have a problem proving the terms agreed to. We enter into contracts every day of our life without signing things -- you may buy a sandwich from Tesco, or a newspaper ect. All contracts. Nothing signed.

He cant because he can not prove the deposit is non refundable.

Nor can you provide a legal reason for rescinding the contract.


The conversation here from justanswer doesn't provide much guidance IMO. I've never used them before, but I thought you asked professionals for advise and if your happy with the answer you pay? I would expect a professional to substantiate their responses with points of law or case law and guide you in acheiving a good end result.

If i'm wrong i'll happily eat my words, but this justanswer response doesn't really fill me with much doubt.

s_b

if i read this correctly
you left a commitment to buy a car and leave a part exchange on collection
you then went and did a hpi which falsely showed there was outstanding finance owed
you and your wife decided that in your opinions only, the trader couldnt rectify your list of demands needed to bring this car to your satisfactory quality and so by way of the false hpi data and the fact you have no idea how this work was being processed you decided to pull out of the sale

the trader sold a car on deposit in good faith and lien clear and also valued a p/x and a deal was done
he subsequently stopped all advertising of this vehicle removed it from sale and paid for rectification work to be done
he had also had an underwritten contract for the disposal of your car using a trade valuation and a basic description to a 3rd party

you now want your deposit back because you dont want it

trader has lost face to his 3rd party underwriter,lost a p/x car and also lost out on advertising in various medias unknown but doubtless expensive


what was the question again?

oh yes can he take me to court

yes he can sonny and yes we do

see it as a 2 way street

somethingcorporate

Never trust a car salesman

OP, read the FAQ on deposit refunds:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=42873192&postcount=16

You are entitled to most of it back, I would say £100 is more than adequate to cover any actual losses the trader can prove.

Write him a letter before action demanding the rest back and then put in a small claim - he won't have a leg to stand on.

arcon5

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Never trust a car salesman

OP, read the FAQ on deposit refunds:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=42873192&postcount=16

You are entitled to most of it back, I would say £100 is more than adequate to cover any actual losses the trader can prove.

Write him a letter before action demanding the rest back and then put in a small claim - he won't have a leg to stand on.

IMO £100 is a little optimistic. I'd say £50 max to cover the time element (can't think what other costs they have incurred, especially since they haven't done the cosmetic work).

I would though be interested in seeing what a judge would deem fair, can't imagine it getting that far though.

somethingcorporate

I agree that £100 is optimistic, I was rounding up :P

And since the OP already offered £200 then £100 seemed to still be a decent win!

I think if the OP were to take the serious steps I have outlined above most companies would crumble and refund the lot. It's not worth them going to court for the sake of a couple of hundred quid (especially when they are in the wrong and a quick google search would tell them so).

ivavoucher

Thanks all for your helpful responses.

I will get an email off to the trader in the morning advising should he not refund me i will file a small claim against him.

s b: there was no way the trader intended to do the work once he had my deposit.
he was a little bit slippery.
I left the garage about 5pm Friday and telephoned him 9am the next morning.
you are obvoiusly a trader and I am not saying you would treat your valued customers in that way but if you did then you too deserve to lose the deal and get back rep.

arcon5

Keep it factual and emotionless and if they contact you all guns blazing don't bite back. Personally i'd also send a proper letter by registered post - emails are far too easy to reply to in haste, and as already demonstrated, they lack professionalism.

Also, give them a time limit to respond -- 14 or 21 days perhaps. The court routes abit of a drag, so try and make it non-personal and hope it yields the right results, quicker and easier!

bris

I was always under the impression that once a contract was formed, as is the case here, the supplier was entitled to claim losses based on the profit that would be made on the sale, I still believe that, however I have read through the sticky to see what the law says, I now believe I am indeed correct and 4.5 of the sticky backs this up.
The part below about finding another customer may be a way out, but it is certainly a doubt as to what is fair for the supplier.

4.5
A way to improve the fairness of such a term is to ensure that it does not
go beyond the ordinary legal position. Where cancellation is the fault of the
consumer, the business is entitled to hold back from any refund of
prepayments what is likely to be reasonably needed to cover his net costs
or the net loss of profit resulting directly from the default.18 There is no
entitlement to any sum that could reasonably be saved by, for example,

finding another customer.

arcon5

bris wrote: »

I was always under the impression that once a contract was formed, as is the case here, the supplier was entitled to claim losses based on the profit that would be made on the sale, I still believe that, however I have read through the sticky to see what the law says, I now believe I am indeed correct and 4.5 of the sticky backs this up.
The part below about finding another customer may be a way out, but it is certainly a doubt as to what is fair for the supplier.

4.5
A way to improve the fairness of such a term is to ensure that it does not
go beyond the ordinary legal position. Where cancellation is the fault of the
consumer, the business is entitled to hold back from any refund of
prepayments what is likely to be reasonably needed to cover his net costs
or the net loss of profit resulting directly from the default.18 There is no
entitlement to any sum that could reasonably be saved by, for example,

finding another customer.

Note the bit underlined:

the dealer can sell the car to somebody else and make a profit. So this is a loss that can be avoided (or 'saved').

If the dealer after reselling the vehicle still doesn't return the deposit (less actual losses) then this would amount to a financial penalty, which is unlawful in a B2C transaction.

If though the deal for example was £3000 but the dealer managed to sell it for £2800, they may have a case to recover the £200. If though they took the P and sold it for £2000 it is unlikely a judge would award this as they have not obtained a fair value for the vehicle.

bris

arcon5 wrote: »

Note the bit underlined:

the dealer can sell the car to somebody else and make a profit. So this is a loss that can be avoided (or 'saved').

If the dealer after reselling the vehicle still doesn't return the deposit (less actual losses) then this would amount to a financial penalty, which is unlawful in a B2C transaction.

If though the deal for example was £3000 but the dealer managed to sell it for £2800, they may have a case to recover the £200. If though they took the P and sold it for £2000 it is unlikely a judge would award this as they have not obtained a fair value for the vehicle.

Yes m8 I understand that and made reference to it, but what happens if they can't find another buyer in a reasonable timeframe? They have a duty to mitigate their losses but a car can depreciate fast (in this case) or a different item can go to sale if it doesn't sell.
Would it then be fair for the seller to keep the deposit and then return it when the item sells, keeping the difference if they genuinely can't get the original price, I think this would be fair and would not be classed as a penalty.
Of course only a judge could decide what is fair on a case by case basis, but the point is this admin costs only claim by people on here is simply not true and there is more to it that that.