Personally I think you're on a hiding to nothing as from your posts you knowingly failed to disclose a material fact which has a proportionate effect on the deal agreed/contract. Theoretically they could come after you come after you on an attempt to defraud. The fact it was only at the last minute they uncovered this as it could be argued this was part of due diligence. Prior to this I would deem it to be an invitation to treat. I think you might be on a bit of a sticky wicket here so would suggest it might be best to let sleeping dogs lie??

sorry but this is mainly completely wrong.

Funny that as your subsequent statement on this post seems to support the fact. Further as you know until money exchanges hands the contract is open and the OP has openly and publicly admitted he knowingly did not inform the trader of a major material fact that would affect the contract price. I think if this went to court the trader would have a good chance of winning. As I point out the trader did indeed carry out due diligence prior to contract conclusion where the issue became apparent. However under these circumstances the trader should return the deposit and the OP should bare this in mind when trading in the car. At the end of the day is the OP prepared to go the distance with the challenge? It will cost more than the deposit lost, carries huge risk and could potentially cost the OP more than the deposit. I'd personally advise the OP walks away and put's it down to lessons learnt

funny that as your subsequent statement on this post seems to support the fact. Further as you know until money exchanges hands the contract is open and the op has openly and publicly admitted he knowingly did not inform the trader of a major material fact that would affect the contract price. I think if this went to court the trader would have a good chance of winning. As i point out the trader did indeed carry out due diligence prior to contract conclusion where the issue became apparent. However under these circumstances the trader should return the deposit and the op should bare this in mind when trading in the car. At the end of the day is the op prepared to go the distance with the challenge? It will cost more than the deposit lost, carries huge risk and could potentially cost the op more than the deposit. I'd personally advise the op walks away and put's it down to lessons learnt

this ^^^^^

At last, people are beginning to see the point. Yes I believe you should be entitled to the deposit back which I have previously stated but what were the terms and conditions of the trade in. The OP has admitted he omitted the fact it was a Cat D write off which has a material fact on the contract. I think this is another case where the issue is being egged on which will lead to tears.

For the £500 involved I'd be walking away and putting down to experience at the moment. It just isn't worth the risk! Morally I think the dealer should reimburse as I have previously stated but then again, morally you should have disclosed the status of the car at the time. At the time of contract you knowingly did not disclose a material fact and there is no escaping that irrespective of what bankfodder says.

And the dealers response could be:

Yes we admit that happened but subsequent due diligence checks prior to execution of the contract showed up material facts which had been deliberately withheld. We contend that this was done with intent to defraud.

How do you intend to get out of that?

And the dealers response could be:

 

 

Yes we admit that happened but subsequent due diligence checks prior to execution of the contract showed up material facts which had been deliberately withheld. We contend that this was done with intent to defraud.

 

 

How do you intend to get out of that?

Hi Helios

the OP should have declared that his car was a Cat D....without question.

the dealer eventually did the right thing by hpi checking it and backed off (i would have backed off too)

the dealer ought to have held the original deal open but taken the px element out of it.

But they cannot 'fine' the OP for trying to defraud them. Only a court can fine you for doing something wrong.

Where have Helios' an my posts gone?

FWIW I AGREE that the op should get his money back - ridiculous, they can't just keep his money.

And I'm not suggesting any fraud either - but the OP SHOULD have declared his Cat D at the time.

These motoring boards are getting quieter, which is unsurprising if you're going to censor them to show only your POV.

Totally agree Oddjob, Bank fodder owns this site and controls it and if he or any or any other members of his site team disagree with opinion voiced then it tends to be moved or deleted. But then hey ho, who are we , or what position are we in to question a dictatorship? It would be nice to know how much he earns out of it too!

Both you and I have pointed out we agree the OP is entitled to the deposit back (something he seems to have missed) but what we are both pointing out is that a failure to disclose a material known fact on a pre executed contract allows parties to withdraw from that contract and at point of execution!

To be honest, the reason this site is getting quieter is:

1. Because of the above

2. The lack of credibility in some of the responses. Especially from the site team.

3. The lack of detail in the original question asked.