Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

New potential landlord has kept deposit.

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4636 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi peeps.


Anybody answer a question for a friend.


He paid a new landlord £220 towards a deposit, with the balance of £630 to be paid 4 days later, with intentions to move in 8 days from the first meet.

After 13 hours, he had decided that he did not want the room after all, and emailed the landlord accordingly. The landlord is refusing to return the deposit, stating that the receipt clearly states that it is non refundable under any circumstances.


Can people do this? The landlord was not out of pocket in any way.


Thank you.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.


NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically, if your friend wants the money back he may have to sue as the landlord will feel that he has fulfilled his part of the bargain. After all he may have turned other people down in the meantime.


If your friend sues, his success or otherwise may come down to exactly what was written on the receipt.


The following is taken from elsewhere:


As to money taken in advance taken by landlords and agents:


Goodwill deposit


This is when the tenant pays over a sum to show he is serious. It is repayable on demand.


Holding deposit


The intention here is that the tenant pays over a sum on the understanding that the property is not offered elsewhere. If it is declared to be non-refundable then there has to be an obligation on the part of the landlord. It is, I suspect, rarely set out clearly what that obligation is. If the arrangement is vague there is no contract and the deposit will be refundable. If the arrangement is not vague then what we have is effectively an option for the tenant to take the tenancy. If it is an option for the tenant to take a tenancy, then that presents difficulties for the landlord if he has not set out clearly what conditions are to be fulfilled before the option can be exercised. The drafting of options is best left to experienced conveyancers.


Money on account of rent


This is a sum paid to be applied as rent for the first period of the tenancy. As soon as money is accepted as rent there is a contract for a tenancy - again problems for the landlord if the tenant has not been checked out. If the money is held on the basis that it will be applied as rent if a tenancy is agreed, then the money is repayable on demand; a contract has specifically been denied and there is no legal basis to hold the money.


Agent's administration fee


A sum paid to cover the agent's expenses and compensation for his time and trouble if the tenant does not proceed and on the basis that, if the matter does proceed, it will not be taken for expenses, but applied towards the first payment of rent. No problem there it may be thought, but the payment is made for the benefit of the agent – the landlord does not come into it. So, the arrangement is purely with the agent. If the arrangement is with the agent we have to ask if there is a contract. What would such a contract be for? Everything the agent does is for the benefit of the landlord. No service is supplied to the tenant. There is no exchange of promises between the agent and the tenant. Looks like there is no contract and that the money is repayable on demand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend agreed to pay £220 for an option on a property which he later did not exercise (by signing AST)


How can you say LL did not suffer a financial loss by declining other interested parties during those 4 days?

I doubt the £220 can be regarded as a holding deposit as it would be regarded as part of T deposit on signing AST

Dare I say, when friend paid £220 he entered into binding contract with LL 'to provide and LL is entitled to seek compensation for breach of contract, which clearly stated fee was non refundable.

If money is offered and accepted for goods/services and accepted, a contract exists. Buyer has few grounds for repudiating contract, changing mind is not a usual one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tenancy contracts are not binding till they are written down and signed (or till you move in)


We don't know whether the receipt "clearly stated" anything as we don't know the exact agreement. Also if the receipt was provided *after* the money was paid then it may not be a valid contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your replies, and apologies for the delay.



The arguement was that he was the third of 3 ( 18.45 pm ) viewing, and advised the landlord 13 hours later ( 08.00 ) that he was no longer interested in the room. Not 4 days as suggested.


The advert was back online within one hour.


He expected to pay reasonable costs, but could not see any, and therefore asked for the money back.


After a couple of days emailing each other, we said we will let a county court judge decide if the "contract" was legal, and the non returnable deposit was just if no costs had been incurred.


He got his money back in full.


Thanks again for your help.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.


NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...