LD brother conned - any legal recourse?

[floppit]

This is a bit of a longshot but just in case there's something I don't know about out there I figured it worth asking.

 

I have a brother with LD who's been ripped off to the tune of a few hundred quid. He's a very kind, extremely dutiful person and that got used. Basically, he wanted a new telly so approached a TV repairman who has kind of been a family friend to get him one. This guy always had me on edge, he wasn't a close friend but my brother has (until recently) never had any friends so the bar was set kind of low and to my brother he was seen as a friend - my parents are a little odd to say the least and sort of half included him (especially after he said his wife died). Anyway the last few bits and bobs he's got for my brother I've thought were a bit overpriced, but hey ho, each to their own - one thing once certain and that's my brother has always been thrilled and wouldn't hear a word against him.

 

So - brother asked him to find a TV for a maximum of £400, for my brother this is 2 weeks wages and a major thing, his TV is just about the most important thing in day to day life. The guy agrees but for cash and returns 2 weeks later with this:

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/aud...ice-comparison

A 5 yr old telly with no handbook and not 'truly' HD ready - the price of £289 new (years ago) was the only price I could find as these tellies seem to have disappeared completely over the last half decade.

 

He tells my brother it's £500+ and that's what he paid for it at trade price (evidently highly unlikely). My brother only has his £400 in cash so the guy pressures him till brother parts with a cheque for the rest. My brother did say he thought it was wrong and wasn't what he wanted but the guy said he would be unable to sell it and that my brother had given his word to pay - I think this was done knowingly, because he knew my brother and because he knew he'd never break his word, or even risk doing so knowingly. In the end he left with the full money but brother has now cancelled the cheque so he's just lost £400 for a tv he doesn't want.

 

My brother was so upset last night but only stayed to talk for a short while because he had to be up for work at 5am. I'm going to ask him to give me this gits number and at the very least I'm going to have a go at letting him know that I and my brother know the real price of the telly and know what he did was totally wrong. I'm also considering going on tradesmen's review sites and being clear that we are going to check the bloody thing isn't stolen. It's a real longshot - I doubt there's any law on our side because so much was verbally arranged and my brother did give in under pressure.

 

I'm fairly sure he's taken hundreds off my brother over the years but nothing as clear and blatant as this. The swine of it is that my brother has only ever asked him to get these things to give him trade as a friend, he knows we would look for him and he knows his BIL is an electronics engineer who can fix almost anything!

 

Is there any law regarding reasonable pricing? (don't laugh I'm not holding my breath)

Any law about lying regarding how much was paid for an object?

 

My brother is definitely small fry in terms of wealth - part of me wonders how many other 'friends' this toss pot has in the wings and how much of his income is made that way.

 

Another issue that makes it a little more complicated is that my brother isn't registered disabled, no formal diagnosis. He spent his childhood in special schools but in the 70's things were very different and on school leaving age pretty much every input stopped. He is independent and while it's very clear and obvious he's vulnerable I don't think he sees himself that way (a good thing!), over the years he's just been mystified why he has no friends and can't do things he knows full well others can. He believes he's dyslexic hence reading and writing are hard but again nothing formal.

[MelissaTeddyBear]

I really hate to hear of people being taken advantage of like this. I know that the item was not purchased directly from a shop by your brother but it might just be worth posting this under General Consumer Issues. Surely when you purchase a tv you are entitled to a receipt and a guarantee. *Friend* should be asked to provide these items.

 

Can just imagine he has told some old dear that her tv cannot be repaired she has paid for a new one and he has spent £10 on a spare part and flogged tv to your brother.

 

Hope someone with knowledge in this area replies to your post.

 

Cheers MelissaTeddyBear

[floppit]

Duplicate OP

Edited February 10, 2010 by floppit

[buzby]

On the face of it no - he should really have someone looking out for him when making larger financial decisions. If there is an offer and acceptance, and the money is paid over, that's the bargain completed. There would be no right of redress, even if the TV blew up within 10 minutes as ths is a private sale.

 

You could try embarassing the seller, or by asking for proof of why the 'trade' price was so high, but he's not obliged to do this.

[MrShed]

I think that you are stuck between a rock and a hard place here.

 

To me, the problem is lack of diagnosis and therefore recognised condition.

 

There is no law against setting a price, regardless of what it is.

 

In effect, this was a sale under duress, but under duress due to your brothers LD, which isnt formally recognised.

 

Did he do this as a private individual doing a favour, or as a business/trader? It may make a massive difference.

 

For example, did your brother get a receipt?

[floppit]

On the face of it no - he should really have someone looking out for him when making larger financial decisions. If there is an offer and acceptance, and the money is paid over, that's the bargain completed. There would be no right of redress, even if the TV blew up within 10 minutes as ths is a private sale.

 

You could try embarassing the seller, or by asking for proof of why the 'trade' price was so high, but he's not obliged to do this.

 

he does have people who watch out for him just not by force - what can I say except he has seen the guy as a friend for a long time and he wanted to give him the 'trade'. He knows we'd sort him out a telly but he earns his own money and it's ultimately up to him. I know it's a longshot and I'm definitely going to try to embarrass it out of him - I'm as mad as a bag of cats!

 

Mr.Shed, he used to be a dealer of tellies and I believe he's still self employed for repairs. My brother won't still be up but I'll ask him tomorrow about a receipt.

 

Prior to this my brother had invited him to his 40th BD next week - the creep rang him and said he wouldn't be seen dead there now (not that he was still invited - muppet!). On the upside it meant my brother has been happy for me to have a go at getting his money, and he knows I won't play nice with toss pot.

[MrShed]

To my mind, he acted like a trader, not an individual.

 

I would be inclined to at least try my hand with trading standards.

 

I doubt its a goer, but nothing to lose by trying it.

 

I suspect this may be a learning experience, nothing more I'm afraid.

[RaeUK]

I don't know the law, but surely something criminal has gone on here? I'd certainly want to pass the info to the police and see what they think. If the guy has done this once he's probably done it several times, causing untold misery as he goes...

If that gives no joy, I'd bet he's not mentioned the extra income to the Tax Office...

Best wishes.

Rae.

[buzby]

Afraid what you think it looks like wouldn't cut it.

 

Even if Trading Standard took an interest, what would you expect them to do? They do not act for individuals (never have, never will) and are invariably a sop to make folk think there is some recourse available that saves them taking the person to court.

 

There isn't, and it doesn't!

[MrShed]

I agree with eveything you've said buzby...all of which was covered by:

 

I would be inclined to at least try my hand with trading standards.

 

I doubt its a goer, but nothing to lose by trying it.

 

I suspect this may be a learning experience, nothing more I'm afraid.

[MelissaTeddyBear]

Hello there,

I have no legal knowledge about such matters but wonder if there was an agreement between the buyer and the seller for the buyer to purchase a *new* tv and what the seller provided was an *old* tv then has the seller breeched the agreement?

 

Would there be any joy with this type of thing at small claims court?

[saintly_1]

I have merged the 2 threads

[buzby]

Not really Melissa - it requires proof. Buying from a man you know, rather than from a recognised retailer would put the onus on the buyer to prove that he was misled. With no corroboration any success would depend on the plausibility of both parties.

[MelissaTeddyBear]

I see where you are coming from buzby. What would this test of plausibility involve? I wondering whether the threat of the test could be used as a means of putting pressure on said tv repairman/bar steward.

[buzby]

When one party is disadvantaged, they can end up being flustered and not help their case. A dispassionate third-party, providing corroboration would be really useful. However, the dispute could still cost the buyer money - they may not be charged to raise the action, but should they lose, the winner can ask for capped costs, and this would have to be paid regardless.

[floppit]

The way I see it, right from the start as mentioned in the OP it's a big time long shot, I have the sense to know that but he (tv **** bag) may not if it's the nearest thing to plausible.

 

There are various issues he may be encouraged to feel nervous about:

*Avoiding tax - he is self employed as a repair man.

* Coercion - my brother stated clearly he didn't want the telly but the guy still left with the money.

* Having his name raised re any potential safeguarding issue when a couple of years from now he's likely to be chasing ISA registration. (not that I think one complaint would effect that - but who says there's just the one?).

 

Of course he may not be in the least concerned about any of the above - in which case it will just have to be a learning experience. On the other hand £300 (he could resell telly for max £100) may not be worth the risk.

 

I want my brothers money back for him, and if I can muster a healthy shot across his bows, at least make it an uncomfortable con I sure as hell will.

[MrShed]

Did you find out about a receipt?

[floppit]

RATS!! I knew there was something I forgot to ask! I'm just trying to get through now I think he's on the phone to my parents.

[floppit]

No receipt.

[Helford]

Just a quick observation.

 

If the television was brand new, isn't the retailer obliged under the Communications Act to fill out a return to the TV Licensing people so that they can hassle the purchaser (Sorry, I meant check that there is a licence in force! Lol).

 

If he didn't do this, then the set must be second hand?

[floppit]

It is definitely second hand, no manual, scratched and I think they stopped making it 5 years ago!