Crocodile Verandas - No Cancellation Rights for Bespoke Product?

waamo

unholyangel wrote: »

Build it in situ.

Moveable doesn't mean that its a physical impossibility to deconstruct and move it. I'm trying to think of the best way to word it.

Its the difference between buying a standalone firepit from B&Q versus paying a company to design & build a fixed/built in firepit in your garden. In theory, you could move both. But only one is actually designed to be easily moved while the other is supposed to be fixed.

That's a vey "interesting" interpretation of immovable. I await a judges comments with interest if that is used as a defence.

Inflatable_Armadillo

waamo wrote: »

If a veranda isn't moveable how do they get it there?

Not only that why is it not possible to take it down and move it?

Actually, it looks like the legal definition of tangible moveable item/property in UK law is "chattels". So, I would agree with unholyangel that as a Veranda, which will be 'permanently' fixed to my property, could not be described as a chattel and is therefore not a tangible moveable item.

Inflatable_Armadillo

HMRC definition of a chattel -
Chattels

The word !!!8216;chattel!!!8217; is a legal term meaning an item of tangible, movable property !!!8211; something you can both touch and move. Your personal possessions will normally be chattels.
Including:

• items of household furniture
• paintings, antiques, items of crockery and china, plate and silverware
• motor cars, lorries, motorcycles
• items of plant and machinery not permanently fixed to a building

Inflatable_Armadillo

unholyangel wrote: »

OP send them an email confirming that you want to cancel (if you haven't already done so in a way you can later prove if need be).

In addition, send them a letter before action for the refund of the monies you paid. Give them 14 days to refund and inform them if they haven't refunded by that date, you reserve the right to start legal proceedings without any further communication or warning, at which time you will be claiming any reasonable costs incurred in addition to the refund.

This was done by my wife in an email and within 14 days. I have also spotted a clause in the terms and conditions that might mean they haven't "performed" under their contract anyway... I don't want to say too much at this stage and I might PM you and see if you might agree?

unholyangel

waamo wrote: »

That's a vey "interesting" interpretation of immovable. I await a judges comments with interest if that is used as a defence.

It should be interesting - judges have spent decades refining it.

unholyangel

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote: »

This was done by my wife in an email and within 14 days. I have also spotted a clause in the terms and conditions that might mean they haven't "performed" under their contract anyway... I don't want to say too much at this stage and I might PM you and see if you might agree?

I've responded to your PM.


Have we asked you how you paid? You mention the £1000 was by card but credit or debit? What were the arrangements to pay the balance?

Ideally, credit will be involved either via your card or by an appropriate finance agreement for the balance. This will give you the same claim against the creditor that you have against the company.

Even if it was debit card though, you may be able to do a chargeback. Chargebacks aren't as good but given the CCRs will form part of your contract terms with the retailer (even if they didn't comply), you should be able to evidence that the company are in breach by not allowing you to cancel. And also appeal to the ombudsman if your bank reject your claim (which won't cost you anything unlike court).

[Deleted User]

Why have everyone assumed the company are underhanded and trying to scam the OP?

They requested the visit. They listened to the sales person. They agreed they wanted it. They signed a contract and paid a deposit?

Why should the OP get out of a sale due to buyers remorse? The law is there to give people an opportunity if they change their mind but not in this case.

It's unfair that the company have their time and resources wasted. And no, I don't work for the company in question! It's about time people took responsibility for their decisions rather than trying to blame everyone else and weasel out of the obligations.

unholyangel

camelot1971 wrote: »

Why have everyone assumed the company are underhanded and trying to scam the OP?

They requested the visit. They listened to the sales person. They agreed they wanted it. They signed a contract and paid a deposit?

Why should the OP get out of a sale due to buyers remorse? The law is there to give people an opportunity if they change their mind but not in this case.

It's unfair that the company have their time and resources wasted. And no, I don't work for the company in question! It's about time people took responsibility for their decisions rather than trying to blame everyone else and weasel out of the obligations.

Everyone did not assume the company are underhanded and trying to scam the OP - no one mentioned the word scam at all and only 1 post mentioned a underhand contract.

Its not unfair. If the company had complied with their legal obligations, OP would not be able to cancel without being liable for the costs involved with any work carried out until that point.

Watson78

We find ourselves in this exact situation
No survey but told unable to cancel
Did the OP resolve with Crocodile

Watson78

We are in exactly the position of OP with Crocodile
Was a conclusion reached with them