audi dave: as others have said above, look at your contract first.
also, read
www.hants.gov.uk/regulatory/tradingstandards/cars-...l
www.whatcar.co.uk/news-special-report.aspx?NA=2185...2 (posted as non-clickable - because ? hj may not approve links to other car sites ?)
|
|
|
All,
Thanks for your speedy responses.
I do have a copy of the contract - there's information in the small print for what happens if the dealer doesn't fulfill the contract, but nothing about when the customer doesn't.
I did check the wording before I walked away from the deal but didn't bargain for the response I got.
It's the first time I've not completed on a deal - so it's a bit of a sobering experience.
|
I do have a copy of the contract - there's information in the small print for what happens if the dealer doesn't fulfill the contract but nothing about when the customer doesn't.
That might be useful as the contract has to be even-handed in its treatment of both parties.
Also the dealer can't just sue for a random amount - they do have to show the actual loss, although clearly as other have suggested, he could just sell the car off cheaply.
|
Selling the car cheaply... but if the work was to bring it up to the asking price and he sells for less then he car was never worth what he was asking.
Still say get some legal advice. Best of luck on this.
|
Before you spend any money on lawyers, write back to the garage's lawyers "Without Prejudice" asking them to justify - with invoices - the claimed amount of loss. Give them a time limit for a reply.. Say 14 calendar days..
It may all be a try on. The response - or lack of it.. should show if you need legal help.
madf
|
|
|
audi dave:
the following is not advice, legal or otherwise. and it is written from the top of my head without doing research.
in your shoes, i would write to the law firm stating
1. that you are sending a holding reply.
2. that you deny having caused any "damages" by not proceeding with the purchase.
3. that there has been no evidence provided of any "damages" suffered by the dealer.
4. that no evidence has been provided of any actions taken by the dealer to minimise his "damages".
5. that you will take seriously any unjustified threats or harassment or malicious conduct.
6. that you intend to seek legal advice in due course.
7. that before you act on item 6, howeever, you are offering to relinquish your £500 deposit as full and final settlement of the dealers claim.
remember, do your own research before doing what i said i would do in your shoes.
|
My letter to the dealer stating I was not completing the purchase stated clearly:
a) That I was not fully satisfied with the car at the point of sale
b) That I considered the £500 deposit would adequately cover his losses and that I considered that this was an end to the matter.
My letter to the law firm merely referred to my letter to the dealer and re-confirmed that I was not buying the vehicle.
I haven't made further any comment yet, since I was concerned about inadvertently incrimminating myself.
|
|
|
I went back to the dealer, saw the car again and was not happy with all the work done, although I did not clearly state this at the time. I did explain that I'd seen a better car and been offered a better deal elsewhere. The dealer refused to negotiate the deal being offered.
In addition to the above points made by posters - as you say, you mentioned the unacceptable quality of the 'remedial' work being done & offered to re-negotiate the original deal on that basis . This seems fair to me, but the dealer would not re-negotiate on this material change - perhaps you should emphasise this in any covering letter, with, as suggested above 'Without Prejudice' before any text.
As your conversation re re-negotiation with the dealer was just that, your letter must emphasise the causal train of events:
- you saw the vehicle being refurbished/faults remedied
- you were not happy with the work
- you offered to re-negotiate the deal on that basis & used an example of another deal you'd seen as an example of what you'd expect to pay
- the dealer refuses your offer.
Don't concede that you reneged on the deal/contract , from what you say you appear (and should appear) reasonable, indeed the fact that you're demonstrably £500 in the red might even be grounds for a counter claim on the basis that the dealer failed to complete or offer to complete the agreed remedial work on the car from the original contract terms.
I'm not a legal person (though not illegal either!!) so all the above is with that caveat. Please consult a solicitor, CAB or the excellent consumerdirect.gov.uk site - they have a phone helpline also.
|
|
In view of the fact that the OP saw a better deal, the car was probably overpriced and the dealer had to sell it at a lower price, £2000 les perhaps ? this would account for the dealer's losses. Alternatively he may have had a purchaser for the OP's part-ex in which he was going to make £2000 profit or maybe a combination of both of these. But regardless of the value of the car, the contract was to buy the car at the agreed price and the fact that the OP was not happy with the work done was not brought up at the time of cancelling the deal, so it sounds like sour grapes when brought up after the fact, so I can't see how the dealer can loose. I'd contest the amount, ask for a breakdown of the losses and see what they come back with. The dealer obviously know what his rights are and is acting upon them, he may decide not to bother if it is contested.
|
|
I would strongly suggest that you follow your Insurance's advice on this. Either that or see a brief...let us know what happens.
|
Dave: further to PU's advice above, would you ask a question about a technical motoring matter on a legal forum? The range of answers you've had has, no doubt, made you think. I would urge you not to rely on anything you find on any internet forum. (And no-one seems to have considered what profit the garage might have made on your trade-in.)
You've only had laymen's answers. The lawyers on the forum (our esteemed mod being the obvious example) have not offered any opinion. That (probably) isn't because they're not being paid.
Hope it works out.
--
Stevie
Lakland 44-02 Sunburst
Yamaha YTS-23
Mexican Telecaster
Alesis Micron
|
"That (probably) isn't because they're not being paid"
Its more of a professional and ethical issue rather than mere money...:-)
|
I will offer my opinion that Dave is most definitely in breach of contract . The old problem of lack of communication and not putting instructions in writing...
If I had been placed in the situation of the dealer I too would have been unhappy as I am sure they carried out work on Daves instruction that has cost them and have may well have lost out on the trade in etc as others have suggested.
I would concur with the opinion offered by a number of people that Dave accept that he is going to lose his deposit and any justifiable losses that the dealer has suffered.
Even his own insurance company lawyer who Dave refers to in his original post is of the opinion that Dave is in the wrong.
It sounds to me that the dealer knows exactly what they are doing and are on strong ground legally but that does not mean they can take him to the cleaners which is what will happen if Dave does not get a professional involved
Damage limitation is the next step and I have no hesitation in recommending as others have done that he get a solicitor to write a letter on his behalf pointing out the facts as he sees them and asking for justification of any additional losses.
It may cost him £100 but save him £1000 or so if the dealer backs off.
|
New trist to the tale today - got home and there's a V5 registration document on the doormat for the car - in the name of both car dealer and myself- with my home address. I did not sign anything at the dealer's about transfer of the vehicle to my name.
DVLA have advised to return the V5 to them - which I've done, with a letter stating I have no interest in the car and asking them to confirm when they received the request to change the recorded keeper - I suspect the dealer sent off the V5 after I said Iwasn't going to buy the car - for what I can only think are dubious reasons.
|
And no-one seems to have considered what profit the garage might have made on your trade-in.
???? I Did.
|
Further update:
Law Firm sent me a letter saying that his client will settle if I send a cheque for £1250. This payment is on top of the deposit already paid, so I would be paying £1750 in total if I accept.
The letter states I must pay the full amount within 7 days or it will result in his client instructing legal proceedings against me (presumably a county court claim).
There is still no breakdown of what the losses his client have suffered are, and I can't see that this or anything like it can be justified.
I've written back saying I want documentrary evidence of what these losses are.
|
I'm no lawyer, but asking for £1250 within 7 days or else legal proceedings is a bit strange, especially as you have no evidence that £1750 (inc your deposit) is the correct amount. Perhaps paragraph (b) covers this but as I say I am no legal eagle - however the dealer might be OK under paragraph (1). Best to ask someone ITK.
Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 says
Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:
(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
(c) falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;
(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.
Paragraph (a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise legal) for the purpose of :
(1) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or
(2) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.
It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.
|
Last time i got a letter like this from an ambulance chasing set of two bit lawyers and their client i ignored it as i was in the right they were trying it on.
Personally i would see them in court they have had a wedge out of you and they should be happy at that
|
|
I think you can safely ask them to bring it on. Defend the Small Claims Court claim, and see them in court.
|
>Audi dave
The solictors are probably reading this thread.
or could be.
I would be careful about writing in advance of your plans.
Ask for help. Tell it after it has happened. But I suggest you do not post your intentions..
(I may be paranoid.. but)
madf
|
I certainly won't be commenting on my plans in advance !
Reporting on progress should be OK - and I find the comments in this forum are helpful. Depending on what happens I may keep quiet for a bit...........
|
|
I have just read this thread and had an interesting thought. If the dealer changed his mind about the deal and gave back the deposit I assume he would be in breach of contract also? I ask this because it happened twice to my late mother many years ago. It also happened to me with a private purchase over 20 years ago. I went to the bank to collect the balance and returned to the vendor's house to find I had been gazumped!
|
Update and possible conclusion
Recap: I put a deposit of £500 on a car on the condition work was done to it to make it worth the asking price. Not all the work was up to standard. I saw a car elsewhere in better condition at a lower price. I wanted to renegotiate the price of the car I put a deposit on ? the dealer refused. I walked away and the dealer said I was in breach of contract and liable for losses of nearly two grand.
After the dealer?s solicitor offered me effectively an out of court settlement for £1750 and my asking for justification of the costs ? nothing, for more than a week. My thoughts at that time were that he would just go to court and justify the costs immediately prior to court proceedings. I didn?t want to go to court.
I had been aware from the time I first looked at the car that the dealer was a member of the Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMIF), who operate a conciliation service for disputes. I wrote to the RMIF asking for the matter to be referred to this service.
Whether a coincidence or not, two days later I got a one page letter from the solicitor outlining some costs ? totalling £1600 including a loss of £700 for having sold the car for less than I?d agreed to pay. I replied to this, accepting some costs ? such as carrying out an MOT ? and not accepting in full other costs ? such as the cost of a service ? since in my view they could easily have sold the car having been serviced a week or two ago as yesterday.
I argued that I wasn?t liable for the work not done properly and I would have suffered losses in having to go back another day to pick the car up. I sent a cheque for £550, meaning I?m now £1050 out of pocket in total, due to the £500 paid previously. I?ve heard nothing for two weeks since, other than the RMIF saying they?ve written to the dealer for his response to my letter to them. I?m fairly sure this will be an end to it. I?m glad I bought my car somewhere else.
Warning to all:
Pay a deposit for anything and you?re entering a legally binding contract. If you want to back out you?re potentially liable for any losses the seller can argue he?s incurred. These losses can be up to the full purchase price, not the value of the deposit. These recoverable losses include any works done ? even if they are needed to justify the agreed price. I wasn?t aware of this ? until it cost me dear. Be very careful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
