jfm
Well-Known Member
The payment did get to the place that OP asked the bank to send it to. So the bank will not reverse it.
Deposit
- Thread starter Mashy
- Start date
- Status
jfm
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure which "point" you're referring to there, but there is no way police will deal with this as criminal fraud, when it's only £500 and they can easily file it under "breach of contract; civil matter" And nor should they - we don't want to be paying/distracting police on £500 lost by careless/hapless folk.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Yes, the thread has taken on a life of its own posing questions and answers that are unrelated to the meagre information that the (now absent) OP gave.
Fr J Hackett
Well-Known Member
I am sure you are correct but regardless of a persons ineptitude or gullibility they should be entitled to the protection of the law whether it's £500 or £5 million especially if it might lead to the apprehension of a serial fraudster ( scammer) that may have over several or more such ventures defrauded countless people out of to them significant sums of money.
jfm
Well-Known Member
Might, or might not. I mean, might or not lead to an apprehension, of a guy who might or might not be a serial operator as opposed to a one-off guy. But it will for sure burn up police resources. Worth considering how high up the police priorities this missing £500 should be. OP didn't need to lose the £500 at all - he handed it over voluntarily.
He is entitled to the protection of the law, but there are limits. He has full redress under the law if he bothers to get a written contract or the name address of the guy he's paying, or something even a bit useful. He didn't do those basic things. He needs to learn a bit of self-reliance. It's not the job of the state and other taxpayers to wipe his bottom.
He is entitled to the protection of the law, but there are limits. He has full redress under the law if he bothers to get a written contract or the name address of the guy he's paying, or something even a bit useful. He didn't do those basic things. He needs to learn a bit of self-reliance. It's not the job of the state and other taxpayers to wipe his bottom.
Fr J Hackett
Well-Known Member
There are a lot of mights involved in police work some of them pay off and some of them don't, when people start putting a price on the law then it's a sign of the depths that they and society have devolved to.
One can argue at length just what time and resource the police in it's various forms have and are using and the value of it and even the legitimacy of it but in the final analysis a crime has been committed and the police have the responsibility to investigate it. They even produce charters to try and persuade the general public of their interest in protecting them. Yes there are limits and it very much depends on who is directing those resources as to what those limits are and who is being defrauded to keep it simple and relative and Joe Bloggs has no influence yet it is Joe Bloggs that is most in need of the protection of the law and it's officers.
I am sure you get the drift and thrust of the argument.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
And yet the vendor didn’t complete the sale, so (benefit of doubt) they didn’t receive it, otherwise it’s fraud and is a criminal matter rather than contract.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
They can file it right up until there’s good evidence of fraud such as a received payment confirmed. The vendor can either admit they didn’t sell the boat and return the money or keep it and admit fraud. Alternatively, someone else might just say they received £500 and no idea where it came from. Vendor might have sold elsewhere as they didn’t get the deposit.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
How do you know that?
Hooligan
Well-Known Member
Spot on. Small claims is where you need to go. It is easy and very quick. I actually think it costs £180 but if you win you get this and other costs back. I have used it once and what played out is scenario 3 above. He will pay because of he doesn’t the bailiffs will arrive - extra cost - and take as much as they need to get your money and costs back. Which is what happened in my case.
jfm
Well-Known Member
I do, but am happy to agree to disagree
jfm
Well-Known Member
I don't, at least not with 100% certainty. I can only deduce from the OP's statements in this thread. But it kinda seems obvious that the money got to the bad guy's bank account.
jfm
Well-Known Member
It isn't fraud. It could be, but we would need lots more info to establish that. When someone enters into a contract to sell something, receives the deposit, then decides not to deliver the goods and just keep the money and ghost the would-be buyer, that isn't fraud under the English law meaning. It could be theft, but the onus to prove that (specifically that the deposit was returnable) would in effect be on the would-be buyer. There seems not to be anything like enough proof.
jfm
Well-Known Member
You're really way off the mark as regards the law.
This is getting boring now. Happy to call it a day
jfm
Well-Known Member
The claim here would be £585 - the original £500 plus the £85 court fee. So that puts it in the £85 bracket. As I said
The below is just a snip from Google
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Because jfm (and I ) have read what the OP wrote. There is no suggestion that the "seller" has not received the money, just that he is ignoring the OP and refusing to return it having (apparently) sold the boat to somebody else.
The facts are (according to the OP) the seller agreed to sell the boat to the OP on receipt of a £500 deposit "The boat is yours" were the words used according to the OP. Seller sells the boat to somebody else and refuses to return the deposit.
Simple breach of contract on the part of the seller. The fact that the payment was by bank transfer is irrelevant as the seller does not seem to claim that the money was not received. The OP has assured himself that the boat does exist and was owned by the seller based on a conversation with the harbourmaster.
The OP received appropriate and correct advice pretty quickly and his subsequent questions have been answered correctly. There is nothing in the next 4 pages or so that changes the original advice except for those posts that advise on the options open to him.
Last edited:
Hooligan
Well-Known Member
Good. I am not going senile then. My claim was 3 grand. Interesting as doesn’t seem to have gone up in years!! But to get to the bailiffs you need to go through a circuit court judgement I believe and then bailiffs so total cost likely to be higher that £85. In my case it was a 3 stage process as per above and only after the bailiffs sent out their notice did I get a response and my money back.The claim here would be £585 - the original £500 plus the £85 court fee. So that puts it in the £85 bracket. As I said
The below is just a snip from Google
View attachment 173750
ylop
Well-Known Member
Imagine you were a legitimate successful buyer and someone turned up to try and take a boat because they had paid the seller a deposit. That scenario wont end well.
Does he? Is that the name of the boat owner, the facebook user, the person who received the money, the unlucky person who's bank was hacked to use as a temporary "channel" for the funds before they left the country? Many scammers are not actually in the uk.
Facebook marketplace is a sensible buying and selling platform for people who meet face to face to complete a transaction. I don't think its fair to blame Facebook if people do stupid stuff.
I wouldn't recommend telling the bank that your funds didn't reach the intended recipient. Banks have responded to criticism about the vulnerability of bank transfers. If you tell them you never meant to send it to Mr X when you did you are probably committing an offence yourself.
It becomes Fraud when there was an intent to deceive otherwise its potentially theft. I don't think the OP realises yet, but the person he sent the money to is most likely not the (previous) owner of the boat, and that is what would flip it to being fraud.
Actually, there's lots of vulnerable people like Mashy around, which is why people run these sort of scams and the police should be investigating and prosecuting (it would be very unlikely a scammer has only succeeded in scamming one person). Of course if the actual scammer is not in the UK there's zero chance of prosecution. BUT even if they do prosecute (12+ months at least before a trial?) and get a conviction there's absolutely no certainty that the victims get compensation and if they do it will probably be paid by installments - so another 12 months or more before you see the money! Worth reporting using the action fraud link several posts up anyway because it's the sort of information that *might occasionally* reveal a pattern.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
There is nothing in what the OP says that implies a "scam" - indeed the opposite. He says he has checked that the seller did indeed own the boat and the boat exists and has been subsequently sold (by the person that is holding his deposit) to somebody else.
Nobody here has any information other than what the OP has written and therefore any talk of fraud or systematic scam is pure speculation. A sensible course of action following established legal procedure of pursuing a claim for breach of contract is the only way to go (apart from sending in the heavies!)
SC35
Well-Known Member
On this basis, it sounds as if I should set myself up on Facebook Marketplace and relieve multiple people of £500 to supplement my income.
- Status
