Granddad put deposit down on car - Changed mind!

[Alf Barnet]

Dealers done nothing wrong except be messed around by a time waster - that's the dealers view.

Dealers took advantage of an old man, who is not sure what he wants - your view.

Swallow the £300 for your Grandad, them find time to take him out car shopping, rather than berating all over the Internet, sorry if I'm blunt. He's after your advice and accompaniment, I'm sure he can happily chose a car himself.

 

[DSM10000]

No idea - I did not make the guidelines - why not use your Google and do a search on the CAB guidelines?

The CAB have no legal powers and guidelines are just that. No guidance they may publish or otherwise offer is in any way legally enforceable.

 

[Doodle]

Just remember the stories on consumer programs like Watchdog - many unscrupulous companies actively target pensioners - as they are generally more trusting and gullible to slick sales techniques.

Therein lies the crux - being classed as "vulnerable" in itself is not enough, the OP would need to prove that his grandfather was pressured by the salesman. This will be less easy given that he went to the site of his own volition, instead of an unsolicited knock at the door or phone call.

 

[BTB 500]

A friend of mine is a 71 year old Glaswegian ex-paratrooper, and 'vulnerable' is the last word anyone would think of to describe him

 

[renault12ts]

Perfect timing. The new consumer protection regs that came in to force on 1 October specifically address the use of pressure in a sales environment. The onus is on the trader to demonstrate that pressure was not exerted. A little research followed by a word with the dealer (who may well not be aware of the change in legislation) may resolve the issue.

Why do we assume the dealer has done something wrong?

 

[DavidL]

Its always a tricky situation. Older/elderly, if you like, arrives alone and chooses (as is their right) to spend their money. Short of refusing the order unless there is a family member present, which could properly hack them off - how would you feel if the dealer wouldn't sell you something unless your wife/sister etc was present - all a retailer can do is ask and ask again if that is what they want and make good notes.
I'm in the situation where patient confidentiality comes in so I can't discuss it with a family member without the patient's permission anyway.
If there is no actual financial loss to the trader then it would be prudent to refund but equally if they felt they had simply sold what the customer wanted without undue pressure from them then they would have the right to be properly annoyed.
Can't do right for doing wrong sort of thing.

 

[markjay]

Had a 2005 Renault Scenic II for 5 years.... the Megane is best avoided unless your granddad has deep pockets.

 

[E55BOF]

That's a bit sweeping...especially if someone has taken their pension at 55. Are we now claiming that with age we lose responsibility? If so..what age, 60, 65 66.5???

I'm 66.3, and I certainly am still responsible; well, when something goes wrong in the office people usually seem to think I am, anyway...

 

[C240Sport97]

was the deposit paid by credit card? if so, call the credit card company and ask them to get the money back as it was not agreed that the deposit is non refundable.

 

[tangey]

Dealer has offered to keep the money as credit "in-case he wants something else or he can wait till we get something he likes in". Seems a bit silly. He made a mistake, holding his money as credit and being totally inflexible seems quite a pointless stance....

How is offering him the option of using the £300 on any future car being totally inflexible ? (although I accept I'd have a suspicion that whatever car he takes now will likely be priced £300 more to him than anyone esle).

 

[Meldrew2]

Why do we assume the dealer has done something wrong?

Not assuming that. But legislation is in favour of the consumer. Only right that the consumer is aware of it.

 

[Doodle]

The 2015 Rights Act document seems to indicate that was covered the Consumer Protection Amendment Regs that came in last year, which amended the Unfair Rights 2008 document?

Ultimately they would still need to prove there was a "prohibited action" by the car dealer, and that it influenced the decision to buy. I can't find any part that clearly shifts the onus onto the dealer to disprove the claim.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I'm sure that if the old gadgie was so 'vulnerable' the OP would have gone with him?

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Why do we assume the dealer has done something wrong?

The funny thing is that if it is was someone reneging on a deal that affected some of the 'anti-dealer' posters, it'd be a different matter...

If I was in the OP's position I'd either buy the car or just leave the £300 and put it down as a lesson to remember to stick to a deal once it's been agreed.

 

[BTB 500]

I'd have bought the Micra.

 

[automaniaman]

^ Yes ,Granddad knows best

 

[Bellow]

What would have been my second ever car was bought after viewing on a Thursday evening and the arrangement was that I would collect it early Friday evening and I left a deposit with the seller (as much to prevent him selling it to anyone else).
Friday 5.30pm rolled around and my father true to his word appeared at my workplace to give me a lift to collect the 'new' car. On entering his car I had to break the news that 45 minutes prior I had been paid off. The next thing to do was phone the seller and tell him (given my new circumstances) that I was cancelling buying the car and that the deposit was his (to cover the cost of re-advertising).
Not once in all the intervening years have I felt that I should have been refunded the deposit.

 

[Adrian5405]

I can see both sides of the story but to be honest i think the dealer is being fair, if i ran a business would i be happy just to hand a deposit back just becsuse the customer had changed their mind? No i don't think so.

 

[Dryce]

I can see both sides of the story but to be honest i think the dealer is being fair, if i ran a business would i be happy just to hand a deposit back just becsuse the customer had changed their mind? No i don't think so.

I think morally the dealer should be prepared to give something back if costs actually incurred by the customer's change of decision were lower.

The customer has wasted the dealer's time but given his quick change of mind has the dealer really incurred a £300 costn or other loss?

Moreover had the customer been a better negotiator would the dealer have settled on a lower deposit? In which case the £300 on a low value used car is arguably predatory.

 

[DavidL]

I can see both sides of the story but to be honest i think the dealer is being fair, if i ran a business would i be happy just to hand a deposit back just becsuse the customer had changed their mind? No i don't think so.

If you feel you have done nothing to create the problem then you feel more than slightly aggrieved. You quickly realise that it is the nature of being in business that sometimes you have to absorb the issues others place upon you. You have to look at the bigger picture and take a view but the customer most certainly isn't always right.
Word of mouth and a kind gesture, if you feel the situation deserves it, do go along way at times.