Deposit

[wonkywinch]

OP registers last Wed 6th. First post at 1631 on Fri 8th. 15 posts on this topic only in space of less than three hours then disappears.

Save your electrons guys.

 

[lustyd]

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 seller stopped talking to OP and appears to have sold the boat elsewhere. That’s what I’d have probably done had OP not sent the deposit as agreed. I’d have been less rude and sent a message, but then I’d stop communicating.

 

[petem]

The seller stopped talking to OP and appears to have sold the boat elsewhere. That’s what I’d have probably done had OP not sent the deposit as agreed. I’d have been less rude and sent a message, but then I’d stop communicating.

You're just speculating. I stand by my my comment that the OP needs to find out more about the person he's paid the deposit too. Is it a scam/fraudster or was the money paid to the genuine owner/seller who is simply refusing to refund the deposit?

 

[Fr J Hackett]

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.

Obtaining money by deception now comes under the fraud act so a criminal offence.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

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.

Obtaining money by deception now comes under the fraud act

 

[jfm]

Obtaining money by deception now comes under the fraud act so a criminal offence.

I know it does. That’s exactly why I said “could” and we would need “lots more information” - to establish whether any deception even occurred.

Your posts re are getting pretty boring to be a bit blunt about it. You do not know your onions. You say “now” yet “money by deception” (that precise phrase) has been a criminal offence in uk since 1968.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

I know it does. That’s exactly why I said “could” and we would need “lots more information” - to establish whether any deception even occurred.

Your posts re are getting pretty boring to be a bit blunt about it. You do not know your onions. You say “now” yet “money by deception” (that precise phrase) has been a criminal offence in uk since 1968.

And was incorporated into the Fraud act of 2006 But you are correct in the sense that more info is needed which a fit for purpose police force could easily ascertain. A couple of hours work for someone at a desk in the SFS rather than spending several years chasing a multimillion pound fraud that never goes to trial or ends up losing in court or even a plod that has spent years and several short holiday breaks in Spain whilst pursuing the Madeleine McCann case whilst countless other missing children and their families have been brushed under the police forces large carpet.

 

[jfm]

And was incorporated into the Fraud act of 2006

What point are you making there? Are you saying my 1968 sentence was incorrect?

 

[lustyd]

You're just speculating.

So is everybody else. At least my suggestion stands a chance of getting the money returned!

 

[Fr J Hackett]

What point are you making there? Are you saying my 1968 sentence was incorrect?

Possibly not harsh enough, I see you are an expert

But the point I make is about the use of police resources which in this case we disagree on and there is nothing wrong in that people have different socio political views and opinions on all manner of things largely determined on the position on the ladder and life experiences.

 

[Tranona]

The seller stopped talking to OP and appears to have sold the boat elsewhere. That’s what I’d have probably done had OP not sent the deposit as agreed. I’d have been less rude and sent a message, but then I’d stop communicating.

You seem to be making things up. From the information given by the OP there is no suggestion that the seller did not receive the deposit.

Read what the OP has posted (summarised in post#96). If what he says is correct then a course of action is clear. Of course there is likely to be far more surrounding the event than he has revealed, hence the request to him for further information which may alter the advice.

 

[Tranona]

So is everybody else. At least my suggestion stands a chance of getting the money returned!

Your "suggestions" are in no way related to the "problem" because they are based on a misunderstanding of both the situation as described by the OP and the law.

 

[lustyd]

You seem to be making things up. From the information given by the OP there is no suggestion that the seller did not receive the deposit.

As do you, there's no suggestion they did. You're acting like you have more information, and I can't tell whether you actually think you do know more than the rest of us or you're just assuming yours is the right answer because it's your own. Either way, we clearly don't agree, you don't need to keep replying to my posts.

Your "suggestions" are in no way related to the "problem" because they are based on a misunderstanding of both the situation as described by the OP and the law.

Nonsense. The problem is that the OP is £500 down and needs it back. The boat clearly either doesn't exist or has been sold elsewhere so is irrelevant. Your insistence that they seek redress under contract law is insane and will certainly lead to them losing their money. If they follow up with the bank they at least stand a chance. You have some deep misunderstandings of real life, the law, and of banking. I do realise you're confident that you're right, but that's your own problem not mine.

 

[westernman]

As do you, there's no suggestion they did. You're acting like you have more information, and I can't tell whether you actually think you do know more than the rest of us or you're just assuming yours is the right answer because it's your own. Either way, we clearly don't agree, you don't need to keep replying to my posts.

Nonsense. The problem is that the OP is £500 down and needs it back. The boat clearly either doesn't exist or has been sold elsewhere so is irrelevant. Your insistence that they seek redress under contract law is insane and will certainly lead to them losing their money. If they follow up with the bank they at least stand a chance. You have some deep misunderstandings of real life, the law, and of banking. I do realise you're confident that you're right, but that's your own problem not mine.

The bank won't get involved.

The buyers bank did their job. They transferred the money to the account which they were asked to do so. Their part of the contract they have with the buyer has been entirely and satisfactorily fulfilled.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

The bank won't get involved.

The buyers bank did their job. They transferred the money to the account which they were asked to do so. Their part of the contract they have with the buyer has been entirely and satisfactorily fulfilled.

Which is why plod need to be involved

16Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception(1)A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any pecuniary advantage shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

 

[lustyd]

The bank won't get involved.

They absolutely do get involved. Ask your bank rather than speculating on the Internet. I know several people including myself who have been through the process so am confident that banks can and do get involved where payments don't get to the intended recipient.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

They absolutely do get involved. Ask your bank rather than speculating on the Internet. I know several people including myself who have been through the process so am confident that banks can and do get involved where payments don't get to the intended recipient.

But the payment did go to the intended recipient, it's just that he has not honoured ( I am being generous here) his part of a verbal contract. The problem is with the recipient not the bank which carried out the OPs instructions.

 

[westernman]

They absolutely do get involved. Ask your bank rather than speculating on the Internet. I know several people including myself who have been through the process so am confident that banks can and do get involved where payments don't get to the intended recipient.

But the payment did reach the intended recipient.

Just seen Fr J Hackett was quicker of the mark....

 

[lustyd]

But the payment did go to the intended recipient

But the payment did reach the intended recipient.

ASSUMED to have reached the recipient. No confirmation at all from info in the thread. Raise a dispute and you either get your money back or (crucially) the vendor must confirm in writing that they received the money. This will be an exceptionally important point for further action since at that point the vendor either honours it, returns it, or admits to fraud. That's no longer a contract issue, it's a criminal issue and the police would then be able to get involved following due process with the bank since there is then evidence of an actual crime.

 

[westernman]

ASSUMED to have reached the recipient. No confirmation at all from info in the thread. Raise a dispute and you either get your money back or (crucially) the vendor must confirm in writing that they received the money. This will be an exceptionally important point for further action since at that point the vendor either honours it, returns it, or admits to fraud. That's no longer a contract issue, it's a criminal issue and the police would then be able to get involved following due process with the bank since there is then evidence of an actual crime.

All that the bank will do is confirm that payment reached the sellers account.
The seller in all likelihood will not confirm or deny anything. And neither the buyers bank nor the sellers bank will force him to do so.