HI

I am after some advice for my parents please.

A few months ago, they decided to purchase a mobile home and paid over a deposit of £3,000 to secure this property.

They stipulated that they wanted a 6ft fence built around the property because of their dog, anything smaller than this, the dog would be able to jump over.

The person who sells these mobile homes stated that they would only be able to have a fence around the back of the mobile home which they were fine with and agreed to.

The seller has since backtracked and has stated that they are not allowed to have a 6ft fence and can only be a maximum of 4ft.

This isn't good enough and my parents have stated this to them.

At the time of handing over the deposit, he did not, at any point say that the 6ft fence would not be allowed and proceeded with handing over the deposit of £3,000.

The seller knew from the outset that they needed a 6ft fence for their dog and had said many a time that if they were not able to have this then they would not proceed with the purchase of said property. At no time did the seller say "no, this is not something we can offer".

There are have been various arguments over this and my parents have since pulled out of the purchase of this property.

They have signed a contract where it does state that the deposit is non refundable should the sale not go ahead.

However, we are of the view that we could go down the route of mis-interpretation/false selling if that is something worth pursuing?

We have written to the seller and he has denied misleading my parents and is refusing to return the deposit

- less than a week after my parents pulled out from the purchase he has resold the property with a further £3,000 deposit!

Is there anything we could do, how do we reply to the letter?

I can happily post up the documentation, but would need to do it when I am back in work on Monday minus the personal information.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks Jo

how did they pay this deposit?

dx

Hi

Is the Mobile Home you paid the deposit for on land where other Mobile Homes are located? (The owner of the Park/Land the Mobile Home is located would say what is and isn't allowed.)

Have a look at these links:

Mobile Homes Act 2013: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/14/contents/enacted

Mobile Homes Act 2013: new licensing enforcement tools - a guide for park home site owners: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-homes-act-2013-new-licensing-enforcement-tools-a-guide-for-park-home-site-owners

Buying a park home: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/buying-a-park-home

I take it you got it all in writing.

I.e. A 6 foot fence at The rear of the mobile home, written into the purchase contract.

That said are you allowed a 6 foot fence in law or by-law.

If I was buying a mobile home id be a bit peeved if someone erected a 6 foot fence potentially blocking my view.

If your allowed it, and its written in the contract then start legals against them.

Remember that the 4 corners of the contract contain everything. You cannot interject terms into it.

Remember that the 4 corners of the contract contain everything. You cannot interject terms into it.

That is a very "American law" approach, (and much favoured by 'Judge Judy'!)

The law in England & Wales is much more nuanced : in so far as whilst overt contractual terms are influential, they aren't absolute...

For example, if a term is contradicted by statute : it is void.

If a term in a consumer contract is unfair on the consumer, it is voidable.

Many contractual disputes arise because something is "within the 4 corners", but the parties disagree on the interpretation of what is stated.

Others arise as the position for a particular circumstance isn't covered by the terms stipulated in the contract: if the parties disagree the courts may be asked to resolve it (by working out what the law states, or, if there are no other factors, what the courts decide "the common intent" of the parties was (or, at least, should have been!)

"The 4 corners, and only the 4 corners" is a starting point, rather than the destination.

I agree, to a point.

Obviously something covered by statute cannot be overwritten by contract.

Your correct on most times its the interpretation of a term leads to the courts making a decision

But answer this.

How does a court rule on a term of a contract when its NOT WRITTEN in the contract and no reference is made to it.

If its that important and the fulcrum that the whole deal pivots on, then it needs to be written. Not verbal, not implied not nothing but written.

Devils advocate here ok.

Deal only goes thru with promise of 6 foot fence. Verbal.

Dealer says yes. Deposit taken contracts signed. No mention of fence in contract.

Local by-laws state you can only erect a 4 foot fence ( I dont know if this is true or not)

Dealer then says you cant have a 6 foot fence, legislation states only 4.

Buyer .. I dont want it then.

Dealer.. Well that's not what the contract says.

Hence the importance of only dealing in writing or recorded conversation.

The law and justice are two completely different animals.... And never the twain shall meet.

A verbal contract is still a contract, just more difficult to prove.

Hence why I wrote the law and justice are two blah blah...

If it comes down to it, then it depends on who the court believes when faced with:

We said "A 6-ft fence is an integral part of the contract, without which we wouldn't be buying" and they say "No, they never said that"

A verbal contract isn't any less a contract, it just isn't as easy to demonstrate what was (or wasn') agreed.

Thanks for all the updates and sorry for the delay in getting back to everyone

my parents had a verbal discussion with the land owner about the fence and specifically said each time they met that they would require a 6 ft fence.

They do not have anything in writing, so like you say it is his word against theirs.

I guess my parents didn't expect it would come to this.

It has been a few weeks since his letter and we have yet to reply.

Do we go back and say we are seeking legal advice,

can we suggest a partial settlement of the £3k refund?

Does anyone have any productive advise or do they not have a leg to stand on in terms of getting any of the money back?

Happy to post up the correspondence removing all personal information if this helps get them the answers they are looking for, thanks