Is this a April fools wind up?? Car dealership and my deposit.

[ReasonableRon]

I agree with Conniff - I would be happier waiting a couple of extra days knowing that I was getting a car with brand new brakes. Not sure why the OP thought this would be the door to more problems further down the line.......all cars' brakes eventually wear out Let's just imagine that the OP had taken delivery on the agreed date - would he not then be advised by this forum to reject the vehicle two months later when the brakes had worn out?

 

Assuming the price is right of course, I do not see how the eventual owner of the car can be described as a 'mug' either.

 

Just my opinion of course.

[JonCris]

He'll be a mug because he bought from this garage who sell cars & arrange deliveries BEFORE knowing they need to be repaired - & who take non- refundable deposits & don't tell you at the outset - hardly confidence inspiring. Not a dealer I nor many others I suspect would want to do business with

 

Gawd knows what problems a buyer might have with this company if the car later proves to be defective

 

So for me I wouldn't buy a car from a firm that treated me as they have the OP

[ReasonableRon]

The garage performed what is commonly known as a PDI check, which stands for Pre-DELIVERY inspection, and felt it necessary to replace the brakes - for the safety and benefit of the buyer.

 

 

Gawd knows what problems a buyer might have with this company if the car later proves to be defective

 

From the evidence I've seen they would probably be very helpful

[JonCris]

They shouldn't have agreed to a firm delivery date until AFTER their inspection. They didn't admit to the brake problem until pushed by the OP who said he would still take delivery despite the window problem & would even return later for that fault to be fixed

 

Also to find there are unknown problems such as faulty brakes etc makes one wonder what else might manifest itself over time This dealers performance so far does not instill one with confidence that they will deal with any future problems fairly

[JonCris]

They shouldn't have agreed to a firm delivery date until AFTER their inspection. They didn't admit to the brake problem until pushed by the OP who said he would still take delivery despite the window problem & would even return later for that fault to be fixed

 

Also to find there are unknown problems such as faulty brakes etc makes one wonder what else might manifest itself over time This dealers performance so far does not instill one with confidence that they will deal with any future problems fairly

 

No dealer can kid me that they can keep a prospective buyers deposit when the haven't even seen the car in the flesh let alone test driven it

[Chesterexpress]

No dealer can kid me that they can keep a prospective buyers deposit when the haven't even seen the car in the flesh let alone test driven it

 

You obviously live in a different world to everyone else JC, many people purchase cars by placing a deposit without actually seeing it. Foolish in my opinion but never the less it happens. As for the OP, I think the garage have acted in a very professional manner, hardly any car dealer these days carries out work before selling a vehicle as they may end up selling it on to the trade. They notified the OP as soon as they possibly could regarding the delay, not there fault the OP lives a fair distance away from them. Surely if your going to travel, you would call the dealer before setting out to ensure the car was ready to collect?

[JonCris]

Well if you think that lets see how the OP gets on. As they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating

[JonCris]

PS Chester are you a car dealer?

[Chesterexpress]

Far from it, we do however have a client who is one of the major players in the industry.

[JonCris]

Chester are you saying your a lawyer

[Chesterexpress]

For my sins yes.

[JonCris]

Not consumer claimant though?

[Chesterexpress]

No, however other half is district judge.

[JonCris]

Thought not;)

[Chesterexpress]

That maybe so JC, however I do have a good understanding of how things actually work and live in the real world.

[tbern123]

In addition to working for Banks, i also worked for a number of national car dealers selling new and used cars.

 

it is industry practice not to carry out a PDI until a car is actually sold. I would also think seriously before starting litigation.

 

Most of the dealers I have worked for would and did refund deposits. However, one that I worked had been to Court on a number of occassions and successfully defended their retention of deposits.

 

As a matter of course they also always submitted counter claims for the depreciation of value of the vehicle etc.

 

I understand and agree with what JC is saying, but the world we live in is not black and white, there are to many shades of grey.

[tbern123]

He'll be a mug because he bought from this garage who sell cars & arrange deliveries BEFORE knowing they need to be repaired -

 

 

Sorry Jon, you will be hard pressed to find a Dealer that does not do this

[JonCris]

I understand that term but only finding the problems AFTER the OP had left to collect the car will not go down well with any court. Had they notified him sooner they might have had an argument.

 

Also if withholding deposits they will have to prove an actual loss not a mythical one. They will have to show that the OP's cancellation did cost them £500 & frankly I doubt very much they can.

 

Also much of your argument about retaining deposits centres around buyers pulling out AFTER inspecting a vehicle in person, agreeing to purchase then pulling out of the deal.

 

I can't see any court in the country agreeing that the OP was bound by any contract without 1st seeing & test driving the vehicle

 

Also last but not least the manager will have to admit that he reneged on returning the deposit & unless he's prepared to lie on oath (which would be very foolish to say the least) then I think that makes the OP's case beyond doubt

[JonCris]

I understand that term but only finding the problems AFTER the OP had left to collect the car will not go down well with any court. Had they notified him sooner they might have had an argument.

Also if withholding deposits they will have to prove an actual loss not a mythical one. They will have to show that the OP's cancellation did cost them £500 & frankly I doubt very much they can.

Also much of your argument about retaining deposits centres around buyers pulling out AFTER inspecting and agreeing the purchase nor before

I can't see any court in the country agreeing that the OP was bound by any contract without 1st seeing & test driving the vehicle

Also last but not least the manager will have to admit that he reneged on returning the deposit & unless he's prepared to lie on oath (which would be very foolish to say the least) then I think that makes the OP's case beyond doubt

[tbern123]

Also if withholding deposits they will have to prove an actual loss not a mythical one. They will have to show that the OP's cancellation did cost them £500 & frankly I doubt very much they can.

 

Very easy to prove an actual loss. Take your pick, Glasses Guide, Parkers, GAP

 

Each month guides are published showing the depreciation of the value of the car. So they could argue had they sold the car in June instead of July they could have sold it for a higher amount. Be different if we were talking about an old banger but going by the partial number plate previously posted the car is 6 years old at max....

 

Additional costs could include having the car for resale prevents them from selling another car as it is taking up the space on the forecourt of another car

[tbern123]

I can't see any court in the country agreeing that the OP was bound by any contract without 1st seeing & test driving the vehicle

 

I can say that I have seen it happen....

 

Caveat emptor

[JonCris]

Oh Pleesae tbern in both your last posts your stretching credulity to it's limit

 

Also Caveat emptor does not apply in the case of a dealer selling to a private buyer but Caveat venditor could

[Conniff]

He'll be a mug because he bought from this garage who sell cars & arrange deliveries BEFORE knowing they need to be repaired.

Gawd knows what problems a buyer might have with this company if the car later proves to be defective

 

 

The car didn't need repairing, if you read their reply you will see that the brakes met MoT standard, but they decided to replace discs and pads (not cheap with genuine parts) so that the buyer would not have reason to complain at a later date.

This was servicing, not repairs.

 

If they are prepared to spend that sort of money on a car on selling it, (and there was no requirement for them to do so), and dip into the profit made, I would have every confidence that I would get good service from this dealer if I should have any problems in the future.

The whole reason for doing this now was so the owner would have no problems in the future, or have to spend money on a fair wear and tear item.

 

I can't see any court in the country agreeing that the OP was bound by any contract without 1st seeing & test driving the vehicle

 

If your note the original posting, the op was on his way to pick up the car without seeing or test driving it, so that means he must have been satisfied that the car would be in a good, roadworthy and merchantable condition.

 

If you buy in or take a car in part exchange and then put it through an MoT and do a service on it before you put it in the showroom and it doesn't sell for 9, 10, 11 months or even longer, all that work will have to be done again, that is why it is left until after purchase.

[JonCris]

Your splitting hairs Connif

 

Of course he was on his way to pick it up but that 'pick up' would have been on the assumption that is was as described & a satisfactory test drive by the OP

 

To suggest that the OP, a private buyer, bought blind, other than an ad on the internet is just plain foolish.

 

You also ignore the managers original agreement to return the deposit

 

I'm not going to keep up this pointless discussion but await the results of the OP's actions

[Deepthroat]

Oh Pleesae tbern in both your last posts your stretching credulity to it's limit

 

Also Caveat emptor does not apply in the case of a dealer selling to a private buyer but Caveat venditor could

 

Well JC hate to burst the little bubble that you obviously live in. I have worked for 2xPeugeot, one Honda and a SAAB dealership. These were different companies but were all main dealers.

 

The main dealer I used to work for is one of the biggest in South East England and sells various makes of new cars (obviously used cars awell)

 

And contrary to what you think you know (and yes I know you are / were a solictor as stated on your profile)

 

This dealership did not refund deposits. On each occassion if legal action was commenced by the customer they would automatically make a counter claim. Unless the company lied to their staff they successfully defended all claims against them.

 

When a used car is for sale costs reduce the profit margin of that particular vehicle and due to the way this is recorded (same in each dealer ship I worked for) it is very easy to show any loss.

 

The sale price of the car does not need to be decreased for the company to loss money. There are numerous factors that effect the profit made be the dealer.

 

However, I doubt you will accept the above as your posts clearly demonstrate your total inability to accept anyone elses point of view.

 

God forbid that you could wrong JC, now that would never happen would it.......