Non-refundable deposits

Mersey_2

Found this on the OFT site re UCTA:


5.6 Cancellation penalties and charges. A term which says, or is
calculated to suggest, that inflated sums could be claimed if the
consumer cancels the contract is likely to be challenged as unfair.
For instance, a penalty for wrongful cancellation that requires
payment of the whole contract price, or a large part of it,20 is likely to
be unfair if in some cases the supplier could reasonably reduce
('mitigate') his loss. If, for instance, he could find another customer,
the law would allow him to claim no more than the likely costs of
doing so, together with any difference between the original price and
the re-sale price.




Group 6(a): Unequal cancellation rights
Schedule 2, paragraph 1, states that terms may be unfair if
they have the object or effect of:
(f) authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a
discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to
the consumer …
6.1.1 Fairness and balance require that consumers and suppliers should be
on an equal footing as regards rights to end or withdraw from the
contract. The supplier's rights should not be excessive, nor should
the consumer's be over-restricted. This does not, however, mean a
merely formal equivalence in rights to cancel, but rather that both
parties should enjoy rights of equal extent and value.
6.1.2 Excessive rights for the supplier. Cancellation of a contract by the
supplier can leave the consumer facing inconvenience at least, if not
costs or other problems. Where that is so, a unilateral right for the
supplier to cancel without any liability to do more than return
prepayments is likely to be considered unfair (see Group 6(b), on
terms which exclude even that liability).
6.1.3 This applies particularly to terms which explicitly say that the
supplier can cancel at will, without having any valid reason. But it
also applies to terms which permit cancellation for vaguely defined
reasons,22 or in response to any breach of contract (however trivial)
by the consumer. Such terms may be intended to allow the supplier
to do no more than protect himself legitimately from problems
beyond his control, or from serious misconduct by the consumer. But
the potential effect as well as the purpose of terms is relevant to
fairness, and if wording is loosely drafted and open to abuse it is
liable to be seen as unbalancing the contract.

Hintza

You still aren't telling us what is going on. So the situation is you have asked for deposit back, they have said no. So your only option will be to try your luck with a small claim.

bris

bod1467 wrote: »

Nice one. Very tactful.

Now show me where I'm wrong in the context of THIS thread? (Read the OP again).

It's nothing to do with the context of this thread, the op is clearly entitled to a refund as the other side has broken the contract.
Your post was about deposits in general, you seem to believe no deposits can ever be non returnable.

arcon5

bris wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the context of this thread, the op is clearly entitled to a refund as the other side has broken the contract.
Your post was about deposits in general, you seem to believe no deposits can ever be non returnable.

All ops said is the service has not been provided, not which party broke the contract first. It could well be op cancelled and they was unable to do so, entitling them to cover their losses

bod1467

bris wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the context of this thread, the op is clearly entitled to a refund as the other side has broken the contract.
Your post was about deposits in general, you seem to believe no deposits can ever be non returnable.

I see you're into mind reading now. :rotfl:

unholyangel

Mersey wrote: »

Does anyone know anything abour Unfair Contracts (UCTA)?

I read somewhere that a Court can just strike down a term and refund monies if the term is unfair, ie you pay a deposit, the service isn't provided and so it's breach of contract, but they say the deposit is non-refundable under any circumstances.

A deposit is non-refundable if it is a genuine pre-estimate of their loss for your breach.

There may be other sections of the UCTA which may be of interest depending on what your circumstances are. However unless you provide us with details, we can only speculate.

bris

Mersey wrote: »

ie you pay a deposit, the service isn't provided and so it's breach of contract, but they say the deposit is non-refundable under any circumstances.

I was going on the only info the op has hinted at, that they don't intend to provide the service.

bod1467 wrote: »

I see you're into mind reading now. :rotfl:

I don't need to read your mind, you clearly believe that all deposits are fully refundable, you post states this as does your other posts on the subject.

Equaliser123

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Depends if it's a consumer purchase or a business purchase.

Maybe. But UCTA applies to B2B transactions as does the law relating to penalties.

bod1467

bris wrote: »

I don't need to read your mind, you clearly believe that all deposits are fully refundable, you post states this as does your other posts on the subject.

As I said - attempted (and wrong) mind reading. :T