Serial distance buyer caught out
Discussion
WTF!What an absolute 
. I’ll bet his whole life is spent trying to swindle people.
We have one in our village, well known with all the local tradespeople, they only ever work for her once as she’ll always try to wriggle out of paying. Unfortunately it seems to work as they invariably right-off the debt and she’ll just find a new tradesperson next time.
. I’ll bet his whole life is spent trying to swindle people. We have one in our village, well known with all the local tradespeople, they only ever work for her once as she’ll always try to wriggle out of paying. Unfortunately it seems to work as they invariably right-off the debt and she’ll just find a new tradesperson next time.
limpsfield said:
Sounds like he got his comeuppance this time.
Good!I'm all for the side of the buyer when it comes to protecting us from dodgy traders but to actively seek to screw over a business is lousy. Especially as he'd done this multiple times before.
Clearly set out to push for a 'distance purchase', manipulates the sale in a way that suits his agenda, then tries to give the car back when it's worth tens of thousands of pounds less. If the car was not fit for purpose that's one thing, but to exploit the rule and multiple times!
Serves him right.
but the dealer was relying on the fact that a deposit would be returned if the customer subsequently did not buy the car after reserving it.
Anybody who has ever done this, knows that getting your deposit back from a dealer is ... time consuming to put it politely.
I'd suggest that Mr Humber should have played that card and looked for proof that had he chosen not to buy the car after his deposit was taken the dealer would not have been forthcoming with returning the money.
Anybody who has ever done this, knows that getting your deposit back from a dealer is ... time consuming to put it politely.
I'd suggest that Mr Humber should have played that card and looked for proof that had he chosen not to buy the car after his deposit was taken the dealer would not have been forthcoming with returning the money.
Sometime ago, on another thread, this issue came up and I stated that on my small dealerships website we stated that we didn't operate an
"organised distance sales scheme", which we didn't. I was shouted down as it not being legal and used as an attempt to get out of our responsibilities under the act so wouldn't hold water in court, particularly by Bread Van, or whatever he called himself, well it turns out that the then resident expert on everything legal wasn't quite as clever as he claimed.
"organised distance sales scheme", which we didn't. I was shouted down as it not being legal and used as an attempt to get out of our responsibilities under the act so wouldn't hold water in court, particularly by Bread Van, or whatever he called himself, well it turns out that the then resident expert on everything legal wasn't quite as clever as he claimed.
buyerandseller said:
Sometime ago, on another thread, this issue came up and I stated that on my small dealerships website we stated that we didn't operate an
"organised distance sales scheme", which we didn't. I was shouted down as it not being legal and used as an attempt to get out of our responsibilities under the act so wouldn't hold water in court, particularly by Bread Van, or whatever he called himself, well it turns out that the then resident expert on everything legal wasn't quite as clever as he claimed.
I disagree. It is fine to state that if you do not operate such a scheme, but, as BV72 pointed out, if you did operate such a scheme in disguise that statement would not hold water in court."organised distance sales scheme", which we didn't. I was shouted down as it not being legal and used as an attempt to get out of our responsibilities under the act so wouldn't hold water in court, particularly by Bread Van, or whatever he called himself, well it turns out that the then resident expert on everything legal wasn't quite as clever as he claimed.
MustangGT said:
buyerandseller said:
Sometime ago, on another thread, this issue came up and I stated that on my small dealerships website we stated that we didn't operate an
"organised distance sales scheme", which we didn't. I was shouted down as it not being legal and used as an attempt to get out of our responsibilities under the act so wouldn't hold water in court, particularly by Bread Van, or whatever he called himself, well it turns out that the then resident expert on everything legal wasn't quite as clever as he claimed.
I disagree. It is fine to state that if you do not operate such a scheme, but, as BV72 pointed out, if you did operate such a scheme in disguise that statement would not hold water in court."organised distance sales scheme", which we didn't. I was shouted down as it not being legal and used as an attempt to get out of our responsibilities under the act so wouldn't hold water in court, particularly by Bread Van, or whatever he called himself, well it turns out that the then resident expert on everything legal wasn't quite as clever as he claimed.
In this case the dealer did not offer the facilities that enabled an organised distance sales scheme to be created, they were essentially tricked into it by the buyer. If you do offer the facilities that enable an organised distance sales scheme to be created then putting a clause in your contract or on the website stating that you don't would not remove your responsibilities.
Consumer law is quite clear in the UK - you cannot remove a consumers protections by stating that you are removing their protections. Doesn't matter if that's in a signed contract or clearly stated in an advert - you cannot enforce an unfair term.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff