Seller won't refund deposit

kevinyork

Timmne wrote: »

Not nowadays IIRC - not long ago, HMRC lost their preferencial creditor status, meaning they have to fight for their piece of the pie like everyone else!

Now thats interesting. You dont have a link to this info that I can send to a friend who is in a similar situation where their CC judgement is just one of many debts owed by someone, including the VAT man!

Timmne

Sorry I don't - it was just something I heard of in conversation (with another accountant!)

Premier_2

Kay_Peel wrote: »

No it isn't a matter for the police, believe me. It isn't theft either. The police would have to prosecute a lot of MoneySavers if it were the case.

You have to remember that the OP gave the seller the money to repair the vehicle and put it through its MOT. The seller used the money to effect repairs and MOT it. There's no dishonesty there. The OP wasn't tricked. As I said above, it was a bizarre arrangement that the OP was unwise to agree to. But the OP did agree.

Did the OP ask the question: 'And what happens if the vehicle does not pass the MOT?'

I agree that this isn't a straightforward theft case, and so the police will probably not act.

As I understand the OP, the deal was that the car was offered without an MOT, but the seller was happy to accept that for the cost of an MOT (ca. £60) he would have an MOT carried out. The seller was so sure it would pass, there was a guarantee that any faults would be rectified at no additional cost to the buyer.

Unfortunately, the vehicle failed big time, and it then comes down to reasonableness. It would be unreasonable, irrespective of the terms of the contract, to force the seller to pay out say £3000 in repairs for a car that was only valued at say £2250.

The seller asked to cancel the deal; the buyer agreed. The problem is that the seller has not refunded the original deposit in full, which I would presume was the agreement reached when agreeing to cancel the deal - but it might not have been. Therefore it is a simple contractual dispute, not a case of theft.


Actually the deal is not as strange as all that. I've sold a car in the past that eneded up being conditional on it passing an MOT (although I didn't agree to pay for any repairs if it failed). It was not through ebay and the buyer wanted to take the car to be MOT'd at a station of their choice (even though the car still had 10 months MOT on it). If it passed, they said they would buy it; if it failed they wouldn't. It passed and so they went ahead with the purchase.

kevinyork

Kay_Peel wrote: »

No it isn't a matter for the police, believe me. It isn't theft either. The police would have to prosecute a lot of MoneySavers if it were the case.

You have to remember that the OP gave the seller the money to repair the vehicle and put it through its MOT. The seller used the money to effect repairs and MOT it. There's no dishonesty there. The OP wasn't tricked. As I said above, it was a bizarre arrangement that the OP was unwise to agree to. But the OP did agree.

OK, I'll tell the Detective Constable (10 yrs experience) sat next to me that they are obviously mistaken.

Did they not pay over a sum of money as a deposit and to receive the vehicle once it had passed its MOT? As it stands they have handed over their money and not received that which was promised. Whilst the inital intent may not have been to deceive...to now hold onto the money without supplying the MOT'd vehicle is theft.

Kay_Peel

Kevin, let's just say I can beat your Detective Constable's length of service and rank and leave it at that shall we?;)

Or they can show me the case law. Whatever.

Premier_2

kevinyork wrote: »

OK, I'll tell the Detective Constable (10 yrs experience) sat next to me that they are obviously mistaken...

Ask the DC when was the last time s/he actually prosecuted someone.

Perhaps with errors of judgement like that, there is a genuine case to protect the public from the trumped up charges that would otherwise exist.

kevinyork

Kay_Peel wrote: »

Kevin, let's just say I can beat your Detective Constable's length of service and rank and leave it at that shall we?;)

Or they can show me the case law. Whatever.

Ah so thats why so many Police Officers try to fob people who report such things off and say it is a civil case. You really should know better then given your rank and service.

Tight_Old_Git

Kay_Peel wrote: »

Kevin, let's just say I can beat your Detective Constable's length of service and rank and leave it at that shall we?;)

Or they can show me the case law. Whatever.

Since when has theft and fraud not been a criminal act:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

If you want to know what the law says about these matters, the last person to ask would be a comedy cop or toytown police:T :T :T

BlueMeany

Premier wrote: »

I agree that this isn't a straightforward theft case, and so the police will probably not act.

As I understand the OP, the deal was that the car was offered without an MOT, but the seller was happy to accept that for the cost of an MOT (ca. £60) he would have an MOT carried out. The seller was so sure it would pass, there was a guarantee that any faults would be rectified at no additional cost to the buyer.

Unfortunately, the vehicle failed big time, and it then comes down to reasonableness. It would be unreasonable, irrespective of the terms of the contract, to force the seller to pay out say £3000 in repairs for a car that was only valued at say £2250.

The seller asked to cancel the deal; the buyer agreed. The problem is that the seller has not refunded the original deposit in full, which I would presume was the agreement reached when agreeing to cancel the deal - but it might not have been. Therefore it is a simple contractual dispute, not a case of theft.

That is about the top and bottom of it, yes.

I have written proof that he agreed to pay for any repairs needed should it fail the MOT. I'm not unreasonable, and I can understand the seller wanting to cancel because it failed and would have made the sale costs untenable (although I *could* have maybe tried to hold him to it, but thats not me)

So that is why I agreed to cancel with him - his request, not mine. I have a banking receipt for the payment made to their bank account.

What puzzles me is whether it is or isn't a police matter as there are obviously two views on here about it I wouldn't have thought it was, but then I don't know - and have been fobbed off previously by Police saying something was a "civil matter" (not this particular case). Consumer direct seem to think it isn't either, but by definition of 'theft' I would say that he has stolen money?!

I suppose my next step is to write the letter to him, and see where that gets me - not holding out much hope though!

I also contacted one of his previous who he had left neg feedback for - apparently he never showed up to view the car, then agreed to pay the sellers fee's for them. He didn't. Obviously, this could be exaggerating the truth but I have to wonder. Poor seller couldn't even leave neg feedback due to ebays new system.

Kay_Peel

It's a bit pointless trying to advise the Op about police matters if everyone claims to be an expert. I find myself abused for giving the OP advice 'straight from the horse's mouth' and saving her a fruitless and frustrating trip to her local nick. I live and breathe this stuff but you can please yourselves.

OP - sorry that you've been confused. Go to your nick if you don't believe me, Premier and Consumer Direct. You'll waste your time, though.