Distance selling regs, non-refundable deposit & live animals

pinkshoes

What are her actual losses?

She should refund minus any costs incurred e.g. time and cost readvertising etc...

arcon5

Can somebody clarify why DSRs don't apply to this sale? And if it does then debating the 'refundable deposit' term and the 'improper home' term is moot as the buyer would be entitled to a full refund.

Refund her and move on. Simple solution to a simple problem which hasn't really incurred costs or inconvenience for her.

daytona0

presumably the 95 quid is to cover losses which may be incurred, not simply to make seller richer when buyer pulls out o the deal....

In that instance just ignore the buyers. Give them a breakdown o the losses incurred and tell them to seek action in court were they wanting to pursue.


Otherwise, just give them some or all o the money back

unholyangel

arcon5 wrote: »

Can somebody clarify why DSRs don't apply to this sale? And if it does then debating the 'refundable deposit' term and the 'improper home' term is moot as the buyer would be entitled to a full refund.

Refund her and move on. Simple solution to a simple problem which hasn't really incurred costs or inconvenience for her.

Would depend if contract is concluded entirely at a distance I suspect - which it sounds like it is.

Even if CCRs dont apply, what may be a problem (as someone else mentioned earlier) is if she can terminate the contract on a discretionary basis (ie not liking the home/prospective owners) while not allowing them to do the same.

Like you said, I'd refund and move on. And if I was staying in the business, I'd seriously consider investing in a solicitor experienced in drafting consumer contracts to try and avoid similar scenarios in future.

arcon5

daytona0 wrote: »

presumably the 95 quid is to cover losses which may be incurred, not simply to make seller richer when buyer pulls out o the deal....

In that instance just ignore the buyers. Give them a breakdown o the losses incurred and tell them to seek action in court were they wanting to pursue.


Otherwise, just give them some or all o the money back

Presumably a trader who chooses to conduct business electronically will know the law also. Not just have an opinion as to what should or shouldn't be allowed as you do

daytona0

arcon5 wrote: »

Presumably a trader who chooses to conduct business electronically will know the law also. Not just have an opinion as to what should or shouldn't be allowed as you do

I don't see your criticism here Last post you advised to simply "refund and move on" which is what I said too...

The only addition is that seller shouldn't be 95 pound out of pocket if the buyer withdrawing has caused seller to lose 95 pound in expenses which would otherwise not have been incurred. What's wrong about that? If seller can prove the losses then they should send a breakdown to buyer and prepare for court.... what is the buyer going to say then?

frugal_mike

daytona0 wrote: »

If seller can prove the losses then they should send a breakdown to buyer and prepare for court.... what is the buyer going to say then?

They would say that the CCR (or whatever the new name for the regulations is) states that they are entitled to a full refund of all monies paid as they are exercising their contractual right to cancel the contract. The buyer is not in breach of contract so the seller has no right to charge for losses.

If what you say was true then companies would be able to keep delivery costs (which they can't) or would be able to make admin charges when customers cancel (which they can't).

frugal_mike

To the OP, regulation 34 paragraph 1 gives you the information you need (the bolding is mine):

34.!!(1)!!The trader must reimburse all payments, other than payments for delivery, received from the consumer, subject to paragraph (10).

(2)!The trader must reimburse any payment for delivery received from the consumer, unless the consumer expressly chose a kind of delivery costing more than the least expensive common and generally acceptable kind of delivery offered by the trader.

Quoted from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34/made

That clearly shows that distance contracts are not allowed to have non-refundable deposits so unless you can find a reason why this contract is not a distance contract then the buyer is correct. Your mum's terms and conditions are irrelevant if they contradict the law, you can't contract out a consumers statutory rights.

Your mum will also have to check out regulations 10-18. These set out information that must be provided to the consumer by your mother when the consumer makes a distance sale. If your mother doesn't follow that then she is setting herself up for trouble.

If she wants to avoid making distance sales then she needs to conclude the sale on her premises by insisting the buyers come to her. She still wouldn't be able to make deposits non-refundable as others have pointed out, but could use the deposit to pay for her actual losses if the buyer breached the contract by cancelling the sale.

ljonski

sorry to be padanticbut it is not mother but daughrer in law with the rabbits!

arcon5

daytona0 wrote: »

The only addition is that seller shouldn't be 95 pound out of pocket if the buyer withdrawing has caused seller to lose 95 pound in expenses which would otherwise not have been incurred. What's wrong about that? If seller can prove the losses then they should send a breakdown to buyer and prepare for court.... what is the buyer going to say then?

And my point is unless ops contract is excepted from DSRs then a full refund would be an entitlement buy the buyer.
In a typical transaction involving distance sales where an item has been returned the only deduction that can (now) be made is return postage (unless the property has been damaged in which case that changes). Postage outbound is absorbed by the business whom have no legal right to deduct this provable loss from the refund amount. So merely having incurred a loss doesn't automatically give rise to a claim.