Legal advice please – cancelling a new car dispute

aracer – I’m not sure why you think Mick should be paying anything legally or morally when he cancelled a contract in the 14 day cooling off period when you’re specifically allowed to do that without penalty – whatever the morally dubious wording on the contract might say.

Because it seems he didn’t know that at the time and accepted a charge might be due. He probably did so because he wanted the car at the price and didn’t expect to cancel but when he/the other fella did cancel his moral compass appears to have shifted to point in the opposite direction. You’re ok with that, I’m less so. No probs.

I think the fire needs stoking……..
So the people saying he has a moral obligation to go through with it i would assume have never returned an item they have bought in there lives because morally they should keep it as the shop has lost the chance to sell that item to somebody else whilst its been in there possession.

The point is, such charges are in contravention of consumer protection law.

They’re not. If she kept a deposit she’d be contravening consumer protection law, asking for cash doesn’t.

So the people saying he has a moral obligation to go through with it i would assume have never returned an item they have bought in there lives because morally they should keep it as the shop has lost the chance to sell that item to somebody else whilst its been in there possession.

If I bought something in a shop and they said verbally to me “If you return this we want you to give us £50.”, then yes. I’d either not buy it, or I’d pay the £50 if I had to return it. The fact they couldn’t legally recover the £50 makes no difference at all. That arangement contravenes no laws that I can think of.

In much the same way I don’t buy stuff on EBay and then not pay.

1000ish

What if the shop said “if you want to return this we may or may not charge you an unspecified sum”?

What if the shop said “if you want to return this we may or may not charge you an unspecified sum”?

Personally, I’d not buy on those terms.

what if the OP had been honest & transparent with ling from the start, and during his request to cancel. And subsequently the people on here he was trying to get on side?

For me, that’s the crux of it. It’s a shitty behavior with a bit of added self importance

You’re clearly struggling for an analogy here – if you buy something in a shop, your only right to return it is if it’s faulty – do you think it’s morally reasonable for a shop to charge you £50 to return something faulty?

Personally, I’d not buy on those terms.

Me neither, but I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to dispute the charge.

1000ish

834 + VAT, surely?

Schplendid 😆

The OP’s mate apparently said “Due to unforeseen circumstances I am unable to proceed with this order for the time being.” when he cancelled – I’m not sure what is dishonest about that? Even if you believe ling about any other dishonesty, as pointed out numerous times it’s all fundamentally irrelevant.

It’s still ling trying to scam money off people by ignoring consumer law regarding cooling off periods.

Schplendid

Shurely it should be Shuperb. Shimilar to the Shkoda?

😆

Shurely it should be Shuperb. Shimilar to the Shkoda?

Well it would shertainly be a lovely car to shit in

the terms of the contract with ling were that he had a 14 day cooling off period when he can cancel without penalty, that is the effect of the act it incorporates that term into the contract and it imposes a legal obligation on Ling to tell him about that term in her contract.

even on the wording of her form Ling is up the creek with out a paddle if you cancel “you may have to pay agency fees ” well the OP may not have to pay agency fees then, so given no circumstances are specified as to when he will have to pay agency fees he has as much right as Ling to chose whether or not he will pay them and if so how much.

The real question is what ticket do I allocate these hours too on Jira.

Well this thread has been revieLing, appaLing and appeaLing at various times. I feel like I’ve been given a schooLing in morals and the law. Morals and business, like politics and religion. I wonder if we can beat the brexit thread for number of pages?

….and it imposes a legal obligation on Ling to tell him about that term in her contract.

So it’s seems very unlikely then, that her claim that Gateshead trading standards said her order form was “the best they had ever seen” is anything other than a complete lie ?

What criteria would one use to judge how good an order form is?

the terms of the contract with ling were that he had a 14 day cooling off period when he can cancel without penalty, that is the effect of the act it incorporates that term into the contract and it imposes a legal obligation on Ling to tell him about that term in her contract.

even on the wording of her form Ling is up the creek with out a paddle if you cancel “you may have to pay agency fees ” well the OP may not have to pay agency fees then, so given no circumstances are specified as to when he will have to pay agency fees he has as much right as Ling to chose whether or not he will pay them and if so how much.

That all sounds plausible, but nobody’s disputing that Ling can’t recover any cash. That was sorted to everyone satisfaction yesterday. Indeed, it seems she hasn’t even invoiced Simon.

The debate now has moved on to ‘Is it nice to keep to your word.’.

So it’s seems very unlikely then, that her claim that Gateshead trading standards said her order form was “the best they had ever seen” is anything other than a complete lie ?

Yes – and I even suspect that a competent lawyer hasn’t even given it the once over. “If you cancel, you will be expected to reimburse any expenses I may have incurred relating to your order” would be clear enough and remove any ambiguity (though wouldn’t address the other question of 14 days cooling off).

I’d prefer to debate “is it nice to demand things you’re not entitled to”?

The debate now has moved on to ‘Is it a nice to keep to your word.’.

It’s business, shit happens. What if, in a rage, you threaten to kill someone. Should you follow through or risk being a big, fat fibber. Asking for a friend.

What criteria would one use to judge how good an order form is?

Who knows. My guess is Ling flashed it under some Trading Standards bloke’s nose at a trade show and he said conversationally: “My, that really is splendid, you’ve done a terrific job.”. I very much doubt Trading Standards provide an order form assesment service.

IANAL and we have a real one here, who I’m borrowing a previous argument from, but even ignoring the legalities of the 14 day cooling off, I think that would still fall foul of a lack of specific details of the charges. “If you cancel you will be liable to a £500+VAT cancellation charge” might do.

Though as I mentioned before, I have a suspicion why it doesn’t say that – it’s because having that clause on the form would be illegal. Would be interested in a comment on that from any real lawyers.

in a rage, you threaten to kill someone. Should you follow through or risk being a big, fat fibber. Asking for a friend.

Being a fibber isn’t *that* bad. I’d be happy to fib if it avoided murdering someone. Broadly speaking though, it’s better to do what you say you’re going to do. Timewaster buyers are a PITA IME.

Though as I mentioned before, I have a suspicion why it doesn’t say that – it’s because having that clause on the form would be illegal. Would be interested in a comment on that from any real lawyers.

IANAL either, and suspect you’re right. Though I think “cancellation charge” is not really OK either, because it has to be based on expense incurred and she has to make every attempt to reduce it. If she’s making 200 quid a pop on these cars (not sure where that figure came from nows I think on) then saying 500 quid cancellation charge would be fairly easy to demonstrate as being a penalty not clawing back incurred costs. But again, IANAL, and IWABITKWALWT*

It was meant more as a demonstration that I don’t think any lawyer or even para-legal has had much to say in what goes on there.

* I would also be interested to know what a lawyer would think 🙂

it’s because having that clause on the form would be illegal. Would be interested in a comment on that from any real lawyers.

I wonder, say you wanted to buy a house and you instructed a lawyer to start the process, then decided you didn’t want the house. Would the lawyer expect to be paid for their time?

Just strolling along the corridor in the hospital whilst Mrs F and baby F have a rest. Saw this and started chuckling to myself.

Thanks thread, a number of hospital staff now think I’m unhinged

Who knows. My guess is Ling flashed it under some Trading Standards bloke’s nose at a trade show and he said conversationally: “My, that really is splendid, you’ve done a terrific job.”. I very much doubt Trading Standards provide an order form assesment service.

or “my, what a fine job you’ve done of preparing something so close to being illegal without actually breaking the law. I’m impressed, well done”

I wonder, say you wanted to buy a house and you instructed a lawyer to start the process, then decided you didn’t want the house. Would the lawyer expect to be paid for their time?

Analogies like this aren’t actually much use, because the case for making an offer on a house is regulated differently in terms of who can pull out for what reason at what stage and who would owe what to who. It’s who owes what to a car leasing broker on the internet during the first week or so after the “order” that we’re discussing.

Would the lawyer expect to be paid for their time?

Yes, because they have provided you with a service. Also there isn’t a law which says “if after engaging a lawyer you can back out of the deal within 14 days if you change your mind”

Big aside, but I’m surprised by the very high level of antipathy towards Brexiteers, earlier in this thread. Some of the sentiment was unexpectedly harsh.

I’m pro-EU, but certainly wouldn’t avoid doing business with someone who wasn’t, nor would I expect that to be the case the other way round.

Sign of the times I guess. Fractured country where the written word and its spirit means- anything? Nothing? Whatever we want it to mean?

Anyway-

If she’s making 200 quid a pop on these cars (not sure where that figure came from nows I think on)

From her own accountants figures (in a 2010 ish follow up Dragon Den episode) she was making £35 or so profit from each car leased.

Duncan Bannatyne was happy she’d not wanted his money as he said it would have been a bad investment.

or “my, what a fine job you’ve done of preparing something so close to being illegal without actually breaking the law. I’m impressed, well done”

It is illegal though (if Crankboy is correct above)

As it doesn’t draw attention to the 14 cooling off period as required by the 2013 act. (Whatever it’s called)

funkmasterp – Member

Just strolling along the corridor in the hospital whilst Mrs F and baby F have a rest. Saw this and started chuckling to myself.
Very good

I’m surprised by the very high level of antipathy towards Brexiteers, earlier in this thread. Some of the sentiment was unexpectedly harsh.

This is not the thread for it but: really? Why would people not feel strongly about a movement led by racists, those who see profits in disrupted markets and the self serving/publicising that appears to be stumbling towards the worst possible outcome on the flimsiest majority won with a tissue of lies?

*and breathe*

Duncan Bannatyne was happy she’d not wanted his money as he said it would have been a bad investment.

…and that was before he knew GeordieMick was going to **** them about. 😀

It is illegal though (if Crankboy is correct above)
As it doesn’t draw attention to the 14 cooling off period as required by the 2013 act. (Whatever it’s called)

Sounds plausible. Linky anyone?