Thread: £3000 car deposit - never got the car or my money!

Hey folks,

Right, I found a Corvette that I liked on autotrader, and called the dealer (based in Manchester), who told me there was a lot if interest in it. The price was £19000.

They said if I paid a deposit of £3000 over the phone, they would hold it for me for 30 days. Considering I had not seen the car in the metal as yet, I asked if I could get a refund if I changed my mind - to which the salesman said YES.

So, a week later I called them and informed them I had decided not to go ahead, and wanted a refund. They refused.

Now, I was never sent (or signed) any paperwork regarding the car, and wasn't even sent a receipt for the payment, despite my requisting one.

The problems for me are:

1) this happened a long time back - 4 years ago in fact. I have never got round to claiming simply out of being pressed for time. This I fear may be a significant problem, no?

2) The card I used to pay was a Natwest debit card, and that account has since been defaulted and closed (in no small part due to this). Do I therefore have any claim against Natwest?

Any help here would be appreciated. In essence, I have proof (in the form of bank statements) that they charged me £3000, and I know they have no evidence that I signed anything, nor that they sold me anything.

I also have no doubt that they did sell the car.

Originally Posted by Conniff

I am betting that you also haven't any proof that this was a deposit and they told you it was refundable either.

The burden of proof lies with you to show they did, not them to show otherwise.

Oh dear. Looks like I am screwed then.

Are you certain of this? It seems a little unfair, considering I am the consumer. Otherwise they could do that relentlessly and con lots of people - and so long as nobody recorded the call they would be in the clear? Surely the burden of proof must lie with them?

Well I do have proof that they debited £3000 from my card, I have the statements.

I also wrote them two letters a couple of years ago which I got no response to (I have copies of those letters). Surely the burden of proof should be on them to prove they provided some sort of service for the payment they took?