Buying Ferraris from Traders
Discussion
Thank you for your comments and advice. I saw a car advertised that I was interested in and contacted the dealer/ trader. I was told by the trader to contact people I know working at major Dealers to obtain assurances and references before entering into negotiations . This I did and I was advised to get a full inspection carried out by the major Dealer at my expense. I contacted the trader and said I want to have an inspection carried out on the car, at my expense. The trader then said to me that I would be wasting my money as the car required a service and he would arrange for that to be done at the major Dealer, at his expense. He said he would authorise the dealer to provide me with all the findings on the car. In order to arrange this the trader then said he would require a deposit to "hold" the car . I asked If the deposit was refundable in the event that I did not to buy the car, for whatever reason. I was told that the deposit was fully refundable I'd I did not to buy the car. I checked with my contacts at the main Dealer who had provided references on this trader and they said it was ok to proceed. I paid the deposit, the car was serviced and I also had a private inspection carried out by a Professional Valeting company.
There were negative issues highlighted in the service and the inspection which convinced me not to buy the car. I informed the trader that I would not be buying the car and would like my deposit refunded in full. The trader is refusing to refund my deposit as he says there is nothing wrong with the car and has now incurred costs. At no time did I agree to buy the car or authorise any work on the car . I have now been forced to take instructions from my solicitors to recover the deposit.
There were negative issues highlighted in the service and the inspection which convinced me not to buy the car. I informed the trader that I would not be buying the car and would like my deposit refunded in full. The trader is refusing to refund my deposit as he says there is nothing wrong with the car and has now incurred costs. At no time did I agree to buy the car or authorise any work on the car . I have now been forced to take instructions from my solicitors to recover the deposit.
NEFOC said:
I see. You are past the inspection point. As you had an independent check anyway you should have just done that before triggering the deposit and service.
I can understand both views. Works complete at a cost to the dealer and no sale, so he is unhappy. If it was SOR the dealer is out of pocket as not his car.
You clearly don't like the report so decide not to buy. That's why it's best to do the inspection prior to deposit.
If the issues identified are not serious, why not get the dealer to resolve and enjoy the car you are after? Or if it is truly a bad car, you must go through the due process I suspect. Not fun. Sorry to hear it.
Thanks v.much. Very helpful. I did not request any work to be carried out on the car. The trader did and I think it was done for a reason. I am now left with problem of recovering my deposit. Always a risk , as the dealer may not have any cash in the bank. I totally agree with you, never pay a deposit before having an inspection carried out. If there is ever any problem with a trader not wanting to proceed this way, just walk away.I can understand both views. Works complete at a cost to the dealer and no sale, so he is unhappy. If it was SOR the dealer is out of pocket as not his car.
You clearly don't like the report so decide not to buy. That's why it's best to do the inspection prior to deposit.
If the issues identified are not serious, why not get the dealer to resolve and enjoy the car you are after? Or if it is truly a bad car, you must go through the due process I suspect. Not fun. Sorry to hear it.
Stryke said:
Feel for you mate. Will try and help you as much as possible, too many off these independents try it on to make a sale and get a deposit, show's how small minded some of these traders are.
How was the deposit paid? credit or debit card?
Thanks. Deposit was paid by Credit Card on understanding that it was fully refundable if I decided not to buy the car. Confirmed in writing.How was the deposit paid? credit or debit card?
andymc said:
Are you sure you can get the deposit back? any legal bods?
I will get the deposit back. I have an in house legal dept that specialises in these types of cases.Not all customers that lucky, people need to be aware that this type of thing can happen.
Very.Very.Stupid. behaviour by the trader.
Jules360 said:
If that"s the case why on earth are you posting multiple identical questions over several threads ?
I wish you all the best getting your cash back. Can I ask what was wrong with the car ?
The questions are not identical. I am trying to find out if anyone else who might post in different forums have experienced similar experiences, particularly the non refunding of deposits, as myself.I wish you all the best getting your cash back. Can I ask what was wrong with the car ?
I obviously cannot now discuss specifics regarding the car for legal reasons. I will let you know when I have got my deposit back.
SirMark said:
Rule 75
This should help
Here's some extra info
Section 75 is one of the strongest weapons in the UK consumers' arsenal.
This tiny piece of legislation, makes credit card providers equally liable (with retailers) for ensuring that people get what they paid for.
Over the years, it has saved Britons millions of pounds they would have otherwise lost to unscrupulous retailers or shopping disasters.
In other words, it's well worth knowing about.
Read about how the process works to get the full picture.
Or click through to skip to:
More information on items bought from abroad
What's so great about part payment rules and cover for losses.
And what's not so great like when cover fails or people aren't covered because they can't get a credit card.
The rules
The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is a piece of legislation that means that lenders must be licensed by the Office of Fair Trading.
Section 75 of the act says that license means that lenders are responsible for the credit agreements between traders and individuals.
In essence, it's a fall back: when a cardholder has a claim under legislation like the Sale of Goods Act, section 75 means the card provider has to help.
That means cardholders can claim on items that are:
Not delivered example: you book a flight but the airline goes bust.
Faulty example: you buy a TV but it doesn't work.
Damaged example: you buy plates online and they arrive smashed.
Cardholders have a right to be refunded if they make a claim within 6 years (5 in Scotland) and the claim is dependent on the bank, not just the company.
Only purchases which cost between £100 and £30,000 are covered by Section 75. However:
Part payments are covered, more here.
Store cards and hire purchase agreement items are also covered.
Other credit agreements - such as a car loan through a dealer - are covered too, though in this case the contracts will need to say something like: 'This agreement is covered by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'.
What's more, all kinds of items are covered. As long as a breach of contract has occurred and the prerequisites for cover are met (see below for more on this) electrical items, a sofa or airline tickets will all be covered.
Making a claim
So that's how it works in theory. What about in practice?
To get money back under Section 75 cardholders first need to call the credit card provider (so: American Express, Barclaycard, RBS...) and tell them they intend to make a claim.
The law is very clear: credit card providers and retailers are equally liable for the delivery of goods.
However, the credit card provider will usually ask that the consumer make all possible efforts to first resolve the issue with the retailer.
Although, under law, they're not required to do this, to move the process along it's worth including in any claim the steps that have been taken to resolve the issue so far.
If the supplier has gone bust - a classic case for Section 75 - that should be pretty simple.
Similarly, although this protection is law it doesn't mean that consumers haven't had to be persistent to get it.
According to a recent study, an astounding 59% of credit card providers gave false or misleading information to customers calling to make a section 75 claim.
We've seen many consumers who were told on the phone that they couldn't get a refund succeed after correspondence through a clear, concise letter or email.
Persistence is key.
More on the cover available
In addition to the basic rules set out above, section 75 legislation has been refined over the years by legal precedents.
In effect, cardholders may be entitled to much more than the bare bones the legislation suggests.
Purchased from abroad
In 2007, a ruling by the House of Lords defined that Section 75 has no territorial limitations and, therefore, cardholders who use their credit cards to make purchases abroad are protected in the same way as in the UK.
They concluded that there was nothing in Section 75 that indicated there was any territorial limitation on the obligation of the credit card companies.
The new ruling now means that as well as in the UK, purchases made on a credit card may also be covered under Section 75 when:
goods or services are purchased from a foreign supplier whilst the cardholder is abroad
goods or services are purchased from a foreign supplier for delivery to the UK
goods or services are purchased from a foreign supplier or agent who is temporarily in the UK
Partial payments
For example, you pay for a dress: £100 by card and £500 in cash. You're covered for the full £600.
Additionally, even if you only pay £10 on a credit card, as long as the full purchase price is more than £100, cover will still apply for the full amount.
Another example of this is paying just the deposit for a holiday on a credit card, as long as the full holiday price is over £100.
The Financial Ombudsman Service cites a claim that it upheld in the customer's favour where a man used his card to pay a deposit for a package deal from a travel agent. Part of this package consisted of flights that the agent had arranged.
Thanks very much. Very useful , not only for me but for many others on here I am sure.This should help
Here's some extra info
Section 75 is one of the strongest weapons in the UK consumers' arsenal.
This tiny piece of legislation, makes credit card providers equally liable (with retailers) for ensuring that people get what they paid for.
Over the years, it has saved Britons millions of pounds they would have otherwise lost to unscrupulous retailers or shopping disasters.
In other words, it's well worth knowing about.
Read about how the process works to get the full picture.
Or click through to skip to:
More information on items bought from abroad
What's so great about part payment rules and cover for losses.
And what's not so great like when cover fails or people aren't covered because they can't get a credit card.
The rules
The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is a piece of legislation that means that lenders must be licensed by the Office of Fair Trading.
Section 75 of the act says that license means that lenders are responsible for the credit agreements between traders and individuals.
In essence, it's a fall back: when a cardholder has a claim under legislation like the Sale of Goods Act, section 75 means the card provider has to help.
That means cardholders can claim on items that are:
Not delivered example: you book a flight but the airline goes bust.
Faulty example: you buy a TV but it doesn't work.
Damaged example: you buy plates online and they arrive smashed.
Cardholders have a right to be refunded if they make a claim within 6 years (5 in Scotland) and the claim is dependent on the bank, not just the company.
Only purchases which cost between £100 and £30,000 are covered by Section 75. However:
Part payments are covered, more here.
Store cards and hire purchase agreement items are also covered.
Other credit agreements - such as a car loan through a dealer - are covered too, though in this case the contracts will need to say something like: 'This agreement is covered by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'.
What's more, all kinds of items are covered. As long as a breach of contract has occurred and the prerequisites for cover are met (see below for more on this) electrical items, a sofa or airline tickets will all be covered.
Making a claim
So that's how it works in theory. What about in practice?
To get money back under Section 75 cardholders first need to call the credit card provider (so: American Express, Barclaycard, RBS...) and tell them they intend to make a claim.
The law is very clear: credit card providers and retailers are equally liable for the delivery of goods.
However, the credit card provider will usually ask that the consumer make all possible efforts to first resolve the issue with the retailer.
Although, under law, they're not required to do this, to move the process along it's worth including in any claim the steps that have been taken to resolve the issue so far.
If the supplier has gone bust - a classic case for Section 75 - that should be pretty simple.
Similarly, although this protection is law it doesn't mean that consumers haven't had to be persistent to get it.
According to a recent study, an astounding 59% of credit card providers gave false or misleading information to customers calling to make a section 75 claim.
We've seen many consumers who were told on the phone that they couldn't get a refund succeed after correspondence through a clear, concise letter or email.
Persistence is key.
More on the cover available
In addition to the basic rules set out above, section 75 legislation has been refined over the years by legal precedents.
In effect, cardholders may be entitled to much more than the bare bones the legislation suggests.
Purchased from abroad
In 2007, a ruling by the House of Lords defined that Section 75 has no territorial limitations and, therefore, cardholders who use their credit cards to make purchases abroad are protected in the same way as in the UK.
They concluded that there was nothing in Section 75 that indicated there was any territorial limitation on the obligation of the credit card companies.
The new ruling now means that as well as in the UK, purchases made on a credit card may also be covered under Section 75 when:
goods or services are purchased from a foreign supplier whilst the cardholder is abroad
goods or services are purchased from a foreign supplier for delivery to the UK
goods or services are purchased from a foreign supplier or agent who is temporarily in the UK
Partial payments
For example, you pay for a dress: £100 by card and £500 in cash. You're covered for the full £600.
Additionally, even if you only pay £10 on a credit card, as long as the full purchase price is more than £100, cover will still apply for the full amount.
Another example of this is paying just the deposit for a holiday on a credit card, as long as the full holiday price is over £100.
The Financial Ombudsman Service cites a claim that it upheld in the customer's favour where a man used his card to pay a deposit for a package deal from a travel agent. Part of this package consisted of flights that the agent had arranged.
Stryke said:
Ok, that is great news. Forget the dealer and forget spending more money on solicitors. Contact your credit card company tomorrow morning and dispute the charges. You have the proof/evidence and that will be accepted by your card company. They will deal with the rest.
Thanks.ZeusF said:
Guys,
I am now privy to what happened and this isn't one way.
This guy asked for work to be done on the car and the dealer did it and used the deposit to do the work which is quite normal.
The deposit wasn't returned as the car had had work done at the request of the buyer who then changed his mind.
Im not knocking either side but it isn't fair for the dealer to take the blame which could give them bad feedback unnecessarily.
Sorry but am I " This guy ". that you are referring to ?I am now privy to what happened and this isn't one way.
This guy asked for work to be done on the car and the dealer did it and used the deposit to do the work which is quite normal.
The deposit wasn't returned as the car had had work done at the request of the buyer who then changed his mind.
Im not knocking either side but it isn't fair for the dealer to take the blame which could give them bad feedback unnecessarily.
I can assure you that I did not request any work to be done on the car.
ZeusF said:
I just spent over £100,000 with the same dealer and can assure you that when I paid a £5000 deposit they were VERY VERY instructive on the fact that as I was having some bits and bobs done which changed the car from the one advertised that the deposit was non-refundable.
I accepted this as they had to remove standing advertising for the car, do work needed like the service, the preparation of the car with Lamborghini and other bits n bobs.
Im not trying to be unsympathetic with the buyer but this is a business that is being slated here and they have done NOTHING wrong whatsoever.
I have spend hundreds of thousands on cars and bought from various places and as I said earlier, these are as good as the best I've dealt with so I personally feel bad when I see them getting what in effect is tandermount to a libellous backlash on this forum with multiple posts aimed solely at destroying their good name.
On a legal side, it could be easily proven in a court that these types of posts have had a negative response to their business.
As some sort of help to the claimant, lets say someone was buying a £100k car off these guys and then pulled out after claiming he/she read this forum and decided they didn't want to do business with them, the guy posting would be found liable in a court if a claim for losses was bought about.
In such an internet based world these days we must all be careful about how we con duct ourselves (I must make a not of this myself
)
I am pleased that you were happy with your purchase. But I don't really think you are qualified to comment or judge on my particular situation as you were not involved in my negotiations. I accepted this as they had to remove standing advertising for the car, do work needed like the service, the preparation of the car with Lamborghini and other bits n bobs.
Im not trying to be unsympathetic with the buyer but this is a business that is being slated here and they have done NOTHING wrong whatsoever.
I have spend hundreds of thousands on cars and bought from various places and as I said earlier, these are as good as the best I've dealt with so I personally feel bad when I see them getting what in effect is tandermount to a libellous backlash on this forum with multiple posts aimed solely at destroying their good name.
On a legal side, it could be easily proven in a court that these types of posts have had a negative response to their business.
As some sort of help to the claimant, lets say someone was buying a £100k car off these guys and then pulled out after claiming he/she read this forum and decided they didn't want to do business with them, the guy posting would be found liable in a court if a claim for losses was bought about.
In such an internet based world these days we must all be careful about how we con duct ourselves (I must make a not of this myself
)ZeusF said:
We are married, I guess that means that wether she or me buys a car WE as a family pay.
As I said earlier, I am not trying to have a go at the buyer, I just don't think it is wise, fair, good or morally correct to make so many posts relating to an issue with the only intention as to destroy the rep of the seller.
The guy above has made topics and replied to others in a "fishing" attempt to ruin someones rep when the better thing to do would have been to either take a legal approach or at the worst case, call the seller and tell them that if they do not see things your way you will post on the internet.
Im looking at this in a completely unbiased view for both sides. Similar to the fact that I wouldn't want the seller getting an unfair rap, I wouldn't want the guy above getting sued for libel !
To the best of my knowledge, I have never actually stated who my deposit was paid to. My intention has always been information gathering on buying Ferraris from Traders in general. I cannot be held responsible for the posts of others.As I said earlier, I am not trying to have a go at the buyer, I just don't think it is wise, fair, good or morally correct to make so many posts relating to an issue with the only intention as to destroy the rep of the seller.
The guy above has made topics and replied to others in a "fishing" attempt to ruin someones rep when the better thing to do would have been to either take a legal approach or at the worst case, call the seller and tell them that if they do not see things your way you will post on the internet.
Im looking at this in a completely unbiased view for both sides. Similar to the fact that I wouldn't want the seller getting an unfair rap, I wouldn't want the guy above getting sued for libel !
hornbaek said:
If you are familiar with the Vanquish ( -07) you would know that a yellow check engine light is a bit of a mystery and can be caused by many things - i just choose not to acquire the car as result. I don't think that you need to justify why you want refundable deposit to be returned. Change of mind is a fully justifiable reason if your don't delay your answer unduly. In my case it was 48 hours later and the dealer had not done (or for that sake moved the vehicle) in between.
How did you pay the deposit ? Did you get anything in writing that confirmed the deposit would be refundable and if so, under what circumstances.
Gassing Station | Ferrari V12 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff