Car deal changed but dealer won't return deposit

WellKnownSid

s_b wrote: »

citizens advice who will confirm the trader is in his rights to reject the deal

The dealer is not trying to reject the deal. The dealer is trying to enforce a new deal under different terms.

motorguy

WellKnownSid wrote: »

The dealer is not trying to reject the deal. The dealer is trying to enforce a new deal under different terms.

+1

Totally

Thats the problem.

The dealer is saying "i'm changing the deal because i've subsequently done the due diligence i should have done at the time and found out the car was previously written off. If you dont accept that new ridiculously low offer, i'm going to keep your deposit".

If the dealer doesnt want to do the original deal, thats fine, however trying to stick to the £500 is bang out of order.

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

You might think that sounds unfair but thats how the law views a motor trader - as an expert who should know.

Further, the O/P DIDNT misrepresent the car.

Not just motor traders either. Anyone buying and selling anything by way of business is legally assumed to know their stock.

If I buy a Rolex that turns out to be fake (and there are some VERY good fakes out there, even to the point of using genuine Rolex movements) then I lose. I can't even sell it as a fake so get nothing back at all.

I'm the assumed expert, if I don't have the knowledge I need, including how to do the necessary checks, then I should be in another job. Simple as that.

arcon5

You don't lose you sue the person who sold you the watch and report the criminal offence.

By this logic if a dealer buys a car which subsequently turns out to be owned by a finance company and repossessed they have no comeback...wrong, good luck explaining that to a court

Joe_Horner

arcon5 wrote: »

You don't lose you sue the person who sold you the watch and report the criminal offence.

No you don't. You're confusing consumer rights and business - a business doesn't gain any of the specific rights of a consumer when buying.

Suing in the above situation would only add the cost of a failed court case to your losses because, unless the sale is "by description" - ie: you don't get to examine the watch before agreeing to buy it - a business doesn't even have protection from something being not as described.

As a business you're assumed to be an expert in what you're buying and, if you have an opportunity to examine it (in its entirety) before buying, you're expected to be able to see for yourself any ways it doesn't match up to the seller's claims. If you go ahead and buy anyway then the sale is good.

You could try reporting it to the police but a private seller selling a fake isn't a criminal offence - there may be a civil liability to the IP holder but that's all. To create an offence you'd need to be able to offer evidence (to the criminal standard) that the seller (a) knew it was a fake, and (b) stated outright that it was genuine. In that case you might be able to allege fraud.

arcon5 wrote: »

By this logic if a dealer buys a car which subsequently turns out to be owned by a finance company and repossessed they have no comeback...wrong, good luck explaining that to a court

Entirely different situation. It's far easier to prove that someone knew they still had finance on their car (they're really likely to know that) than that they know their very good fake is a fake, or that their car was previously cat D. So you have a chance of showing fraud.

Also, outstanding finance is covered by an entirely different section of the SOGA (s.12) relating to good title and implied lack of existing charge. If it's owned by a finance company (PCP etc) then the seller doesn't have good title to sell, if it's owned by the seller but the finance company has security in it (eg: secured bank loan) then there's an existing charge. neither of those have anything to do with the description requirements.

Joe_Horner

double post

AdrianC

motorguy wrote: »

It may well have been written off at one point by the insurance company, however now that it is repaired and back on the road it is not now a write off is it?

...which is why that CatD marker is only temporary, and has no ongoing effect on the value of the car.

Oh, wait a minute.

Look, you know and I know what CatD means, and the fact that it's a whim of the assessor, no more. Perhaps the judgement call as to whether to repair or write-off hung on whether the parts could be delivered quickly or a hire car was being paid for. But the fact is that that car has an indelible black mark on the history which means it IS worth less than an unflagged equivalent.

neilmcl

burlington6 wrote: »

I think the op knew it was a cat d and thought he could pull a fast one.

Nobody is as dishonest as the great British public

Totally irrelevant either way.

m0bov

You can also remind the dealer they are also liable for any consequential loss should you have to stump up more money to purchase a similar car elsewhere.

motorguy

AdrianC wrote: »

...which is why that CatD marker is only temporary, and has no ongoing effect on the value of the car.

Oh, wait a minute.

Look, you know and I know what CatD means, and the fact that it's a whim of the assessor, no more. Perhaps the judgement call as to whether to repair or write-off hung on whether the parts could be delivered quickly or a hire car was being paid for. But the fact is that that car has an indelible black mark on the history which means it IS worth less than an unflagged equivalent.

You missed my point - which is fair enough as it was down to semantics and wording.

The O/P described his car as being described by the dealer as "a write off". Its not - it was previously written off by an insurance company and subsequently repaired. Likewise the O/P needs to be clear HE is not not fulfilling the agreed contract, its the DEALER.

And yes, its clearly worth less - i've no issues with that.