£500 car deposit non refunded - section 75?

chattychappy

You can start proceeedings online at https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome. (But if you qualify for fees remission, you have to do it via your local court.)

I agree about writing a short letter beforehand. Keep it short, something along the lines of: "Re. Deposit £500. This deposit was given on the basis it was refundable in the event I decided not to proceed with the purchase following an unsatisfactory inspection report. The report was unsatisfactory - the car was not as represented to me and its condition poor for the reasons already discussed. Unless you refund the £500 to me within the next 14 days I shall issue a county court claim. In this event I shall also seek to recover interest and my reasonable costs."

If there was a misrepresentation, then terms entered into regarding the deposit are irrelevant - you are entitled to your money back - which is why I like this option as you do not have argue what the deal was. But it does sound to me if there wasn't a misrep, just the car needed an inspection. Anyway you can run more than one argument - you put one position and argue another "in the alternative".

Agree with the comment about the FOS. The general inefficiency of the court system and the specialist nature of many disputes has led to the creation of endless alternative dispute resolution entities: ombudsmen, the OFT, trading standards, parking adjudicators etc etc. But often they dish out dodgy decisions, and a proper court is the best forum for a dispute of this nature IMHO.

BugsyBrowne

You entered a legally binding contract by paying the deposit where as posters above have said the seller is in his rights to not give you your money back.
Even a small claims court you wouldn't stand a chance.

chattychappy

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

You entered a legally binding contract by paying the deposit where as posters above have said the seller is in his rights to not give you your money back..

Er.... what rights? The rights are as were agreed at the time of making the deposit.

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

Even a small claims court you wouldn't stand a chance.

Really... not a chance? What if they don't defend? What if they don't turn up? What if the judge hears the evidence and comes to a different view to yours?

I do love it the way people come onto these forums and pass these categorical judgements on the basis of a few posts.

lisyloo

Er.... what rights? The rights are as were agreed at the time of making the deposit.

Er yes, there's contract.
If there are issues of a minor nature then you have to give the retailer the opportunity to put things right before demanding a refund.

Really... not a chance? What if they don't defend? What if they don't turn up? What if the judge hears the evidence and comes to a different view to yours?

I do love it the way people come onto these forums and pass these categorical judgements on the basis of a few posts.

I don't think there's much chance and that's not on the basis of just a few posts, but on the basis of the judgment of the independent FOS, who say that the dealer should have been given the chance to rectify the faults.
The FOS are independent and generally fair to consumers where there is a case.

Is there a reason you think the FOS judgement wrong?

Generally to make it worth going to court with your own money you need a pretty good case. Here we have an independent judgement already. So where is the compelling evidence that this judgment is wrong?

macman

Unless you paid the desposit on the basis that it would be fully refundable if the car failed the inspection, then the dealer is fully entitled to retain your deposit, and indeed to sue you for the balance owing, since you are clearly in breach of contract. He offered to transfer that to another vehicle (which he was under no obligation to do) but you refused that very fair offer.
A deposit is not an 'option to purchase', it is confirmation of a binding contract.
Any legal action will fail and leave you further out of pocket, as any solicitor will tell you in 5 minutes once told the facts.
It's no different to buying a house. Once you paid the deposit at exchange, you own the property, although you can't take possession of it until completion and payment of the balance. If you fail to pay the balance, you lose your deposit.

BugsyBrowne

chattychappy wrote: »

Er.... what rights? The rights are as were agreed at the time of making the deposit.



Really... not a chance? What if they don't defend? What if they don't turn up? What if the judge hears the evidence and comes to a different view to yours?

I do love it the way people come onto these forums and pass these categorical judgements on the basis of a few posts.

It's not a categorical judgment It's going on past experience.

lisyloo

It's not a categorical judgment

The FOS have already ruled on it. So that's something fairly major to go on.

I'm not saying they can't ever be wrong, but there would need to be some sort of case prefereably compelling if you are taking someone to court with your own money.

Alex_LS

lisyloo wrote: »

The FOS have already ruled on it. So that's something fairly major to go on.

I'm not saying they can't ever be wrong, but there would need to be some sort of case prefereably compelling if you are taking someone to court with your own money.

The FOS have ruled on the particular matter of whether a s75 chargeback is applicable. They have decided it's not, under those particular rules. They have not passed a legal judgement as to whether the deposit is refundable; that's the remit of a court.

lisyloo

Alex_LS wrote: »

The FOS have ruled on the particular matter of whether a s75 chargeback is applicable. They have decided it's not, under those particular rules. They have not passed a legal judgement as to whether the deposit is refundable; that's the remit of a court.

And what different legislation is it that you think applies to the dealer that does not apply to the card company?
My understanding is that the card company carry the same liability as the retailer.

Again - what are the fundamental arguments of the case against the dealer here that justifies the expense (including possibly paid leave & travel) in going to court?

Of course the OP is free to do this if they so wish, it's their money.
I have suggested already taking advantage of any free legal advice and free legal cover available.
If none is available perhaps it's worth getting a free no obligation interview with a local solicitor. I'm sure we'd all be interested.

Alex_LS

lisyloo wrote: »

And what different legislation is it that you think applies to the dealer that does not apply to the card company?
My understanding is that the card company carry the same liability as the retailer.

The FOS doesn't make legal rulings, and contract law can be complicated at best. The OP indicates that he stated the deposit was subject to an inspection, which gives cause for a claim for breach of contract. The chance of success doesn't even rest solely on how favourably the claim would be judged; the dealer may decide to settle upon receipt of the claim - either because it's not worth the time/effort for £500, or because they feel they would lose - or they may not even respond and therefore lose by default.

It will cost the OP £25 to issue the claim online, and a further £25 if it ends up in court (all refundable if he wins). He may feel it's worth the risk.