Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

bdkelly72

used car deposit question

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2564 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I put a deposit on a car £500, non-returnable option to buy.

 

My circumstances have changed and while I do not wish for it back require to be transfered to another cheaper car than i can afford.

 

I am now being told that the deposit is Non-Transferable. Is this a new express term that voids the agreement or is this allowed. There was no mention of non-transferable on the receipt

 

Anymore detail i will happily oblige, he told me today it was non-transferable.

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had alot of views and respect them all. If you cannot advise of certainty, its a grey area i admit, can you speculate :D ... i have some contract law experience 20 years drafting construction contracts. And in my terms added an express term late had to be agreed, or else it wasnt or would allow renegotiation.

 

I always see most contracts ie plane tickets etc state expressly non-transferable. Is it implied deposits are therefore transferable unless expressly stated otherwise

 

I woudl like opinion , but would love case law.

 

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguing with myself now.. is there a defined term for what is transferable.. i do not want to transfer the deposit to another person , just the understanding that the car company will allow the deposit to transfer on another car.

 

As there are no implied terms for used car sale, maybe I assume changes outside of consumer law have to be expressed.

 

The contract has no defined terms. Its a A4 piece of paper

 

I need a solicitor to confirm if deposits are implied non-transferable and what the transfer permits to

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would of thought a deposit on a car would be non transferable. At the point you ordered the car and left the deposit, the trader had to remove that car from sale thus losing potential sales on it. He also has to prepare the car for retail eg service, MOT and valet. Personally, If it were me I'd of tried to find a car to suit you at your new budget, just for the sake of customer service. But in these days of small margins and difficult trading I can understand the traders stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for comment. Why would you think a deposit is non-transferable. Thats why I am wondering why the biggest and best have to express the term. Its obviously not or they would not waste their ink. just wondering what case law made them express it. It is there some where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he did not valet or any-such, and he car was unsold for 6 months he local like me. if he did that would be a cost and not a penalty, penalties not allowed under contract law. Again maybe deposits differ still waiting on a solicitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, the purpose of a deposit is to show the seller that the customer wants to buy, the purpose is that in paying the deposit the customer then loses the deposit money if they change their mind.

 

you may have cancellation rights but only if the car dealership has given you the rights.

 

a deposit is non transferable because the car dealership can not be expected to lose money caused by customers changing their mind about what car they are going to purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They wont lose the money ... i didnt ask for a refund. Non-transferable is an express and should be expressed accordingly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear some dealers talking and not any solicitors, As a contract law specialist i will take my chances in small claims and let you know. If i was to tell a subbie i negotiated with that there were new conditions he would ask for a change request. A new condition/term was added outside of our agreement this make it up to me to accept or not. I choose not to.

 

You have the same right in any contract you go into when fundamental terms change. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They wont lose the money ... i didnt ask for a refund. Non-transferable is an express and should be expressed accordingly

 

i dont understand - it is an express and should be expressed accordingly?

 

the car dealers will lose money as described above!

 

when you gave them the deposit, you both entered into a contract. as you are now not buying, then the car dealership can pursue you and make a legal claim for their loss of profit from you, because you did not commit to your side of the contract. but i guess they would not bother doing this as that is what the deposit is used for...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont understand - it is an express and should be expressed accordingly?

 

the car dealers will lose money as described above!

 

when you gave them the deposit, you both entered into a contract. as you are now not buying, then the car dealership can pursue you and make a legal claim for their loss of profit from you, because you did not commit to your side of the contract. but i guess they would not bother doing this as that is what the deposit is used for...

 

thanks for answer

 

1/ what loss of profit.. it has to be demonstrable.. loss of opportunity is a hard one to prove, very hard

2/ i did not sign a penalty clause

3/ he stated after the contract a new term , non-transferable.

 

why will they lose money, you are a dealer ?

 

what did they lose?

 

i want to buy he wont let me ..... he dint say i could not transfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1/ already - the loss of profit is demonstrated by you paying the deposit. when you paid the deposit, you entered a legal contract with the car dealer.

2/ there is no penalty here. why do you need to sign a penalty clause?

3/ i can not see any car dealership that would allow transferable deposits on their cars

 

no i am not a car dealer.

 

they lost the ability to sell the car as you have broken your contract, other financial losses are getting the car ready for you etc... and this is represented in the deposit that you paid.

 

you say he wont let you buy?!?! he will let you buy the car you paid a deposit on but will not let you transfer the deposit to another car, he is not not letting you buy...

 

i really dont think you have much chance of getting your £500 back, especially as the car dealer said they wont let you transfer. as the car dealer wont do this to you, if you took this to court then i would guess that the car dealer would then make a counter claim for their financial losses... as well as there not being any chance of you winning this in court. hopefully someone else can magic something up for you, but the law seems to be with the car dealer on this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will allow them to make their assessment of loss the car is worth 1800 pounds, they added a new term to our agreement, i am dont disputing an obligation just the new term. Lots and lots and lots of dealerships transfer deposits. Google it.

 

I will take my chances. New terms need to be agreed by both parties. This is common law. I know law alot, but basic construction law, just wondering is their a statutory one with regards to transferable deposits. If there is not its a new term, why do you see non-transferable on most other agreements then ? i am curious why they bother.

 

If you are a solicitor please confirm, if offering opion thats great too.. but clarify as you may mislead like i might be other people. I am not a solicitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not a car dealer and am not a solicitor. just offering my opinion.

 

you say you will take your chances? this means you are prepared to take this to court? seriously i wish you all the best with that but its just my opinion that the court wont allow your case, - it would be struck out as you have no argument... or no case. and the the cardealer could make their counter claim against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be generally held that deposits are non-transferable in the same way the general rule is that they're non-refundabe. This makes sense if you consider that in the majority of cases a contract for the supply of an item would only apply to that item. You are not making a contract for the supply of any car - you made a contract for the supply of a specific car that they will have incurred costs in preparing for sale and now re-listing for sale (whether or not these costs reflect the amount of deposit they're keeping is another matter).You mention deposits for plane tickets being expressly non-transferable and that is probably because they are providing a service and not a product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it would be generally held that deposits are non-transferable in the same way the general rule is that they're non-refundabe. This makes sense if you consider that in the majority of cases a contract for the supply of an item would only apply to that item. You are not making a contract for the supply of any car - you made a contract for the supply of a specific car that they will have incurred costs in preparing for sale and now re-listing for sale (whether or not these costs reflect the amount of deposit they're keeping is another matter).You mention deposits for plane tickets being expressly non-transferable and that is probably because they are providing a service and not a product.

 

not excactly correct, deposits become non refundable or non transferable if the T & C's specificallt state if or a contract states it. Airlines have it in their T & C's. If it wasnt mentioned in the contract or any T & C's then the OP can legitemately claim his deposit back less an agreed fee to recompense the seller for any demonstratable losses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not excactly correct, deposits become non refundable or non transferable if the T & C's specificallt state if or a contract states it. Airlines have it in their T & C's. If it wasnt mentioned in the contract or any T & C's then the OP can legitemately claim his deposit back less an agreed fee to recompense the seller for any demonstratable losses

 

So if there's no contract terms to the contrary then a deposit is automatically refundable? I don't think so. What about consequential loss? (which is what a deposit covers the vendor for in the event of a breach of contract). It's not me that's not exactly correct I'm afraid to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im not a car dealer and am not a solicitor. just offering my opinion.

 

you say you will take your chances? this means you are prepared to take this to court? seriously i wish you all the best with that but its just my opinion that the court wont allow your case, - it would be struck out as you have no argument... or no case. and the the cardealer could make their counter claim against you.

 

counter claim against me for what ? for keeping my deposit. This is what the small claims are for, for people who believe they have a legitimate claim against a bigger opponent to test it in court. I have heard nothing clear unfortunately either way. It is all revolving around my request to use a term that is generally excluded from deposits so my I would argue not expressing the deposit is non-transferable implies that the deposit is transferable remember (just my opinion) as it is normal to include non-transferable ie "the man on the clapham bus" (sic) test. If they did not wish it to be non-transferable as some deposits state they should have said it.

 

I will let you now what happens. Be curious what I will be counter sued for.

 

Thanks for replies, and take care. Sorry for double post by the way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if there's no contract terms to the contrary then a deposit is automatically refundable? I don't think so. What about consequential loss? (which is what a deposit covers the vendor for in the event of a breach of contract). It's not me that's not exactly correct I'm afraid to say.

 

and yes if the deposit states non-refundable the deposit is refundable less as you said costs, but that is basic law. I didnt ask I may add for a refund just transfer, I was happy to buy a car off him. He was unreasonable (maybe. maybe not) in not trying to negotiate less any costs he incurred preparing the vehicle, which he didnt. Moved it 3 feet. To offer nothing and rely on a term that was not expressed in the terms and conditions is a bit unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...