Welcome Tobster and Westie. It is a very bad situation. I agree with Szkom, it's no one else's business but yours.

[quote=szkom]"we" don't need to see anything. We've heard about some suspect dealings. If the parties want to discuss via pm I'm sure they will. IMO that sort of discussion in an open forum is bad form at best."

Also as Mrs. Bercow recently discovered we should all be aware of the possible legal implications of posts/comments in a public forum.

Sorry szkom, porkypaul and lost55, but whilst we should all be aware of legal implications, if it's an open and shut case that Lyles breached their original contract, why shouldn't we all be warned and aware of such an allegedly dodgy dealer?

Especially when they are italian car specialists and are likely to be selling Coupes again. I wouldn't for a moment suggest that people post things that cannot be proven, but I really hate such alleged dodgy dealings.

Can you imagine what it's like to buy a car in such lovely looking condition for such a good price and then to be gazumped.

Plenty of times in the past on these forums we have been warned publicly about suspect dealings. What's different now?

BTW, I don't agree that suspect is sufficient. At the moment, all I've suggested is that tobster helps Westie 1 to establish the facts beyond doubt. If that can be done, why not make it public?

Well, scrub all of the above. Just seen Westie1's post saying that she got her deposit back and won't be taking it further.

Hope you find the car you want and hope tobster enjoys the car that slipped through your hands.

I guess that as long as Westie1 finds a nice Coupe, everyone's a winner, but I know that there's one dealer in Newcastle that I'd never visit, allegedly.

Thank you Pigman for your support of my post. I do think it's important to make people of aware of these things. My deposit on the car was actually made on 14th February and on 15th February the car was allegedly withdrawn from sale (but obviously not), and the advert removed from Gumtree and the car was marked as withdrawn on their website.
When you made that comment about "imagine buying a car in such lovely looking condition for such a good price and then to be guzumped" you hit the nail on the head because I felt absolutely sick about it. I am sure I will find another nice coupe and have had some great support from members here too who are helping me with my search.

Pigman, you misunderstand my post. Letting people know about a bad experience is a good thing. What I don't agree with is going into the fine detail over who offered what, and when on a public forum. Which is what you were suggesting. That's none of our business.

Westie, I couldn't agree more. This forum is going to be a very good place to find a well looked after example of a coupé. I hope your search is quick and simple.

Trouble is, if you let people know that you've had a bad experience and from where, or if where can be easily deduced, as is the case here; without providing some incontrovertable detail, i.e. facts about the experience, you could lay yourself open to some kind of legal action from the alleged perpetrator.

I don't see why we shouldn't all know if attempted buyer 'A' places a deposit to secure an item at a specific time and then the seller accepts a better offer from 'B' and decides to not honour their original contract with 'A'.

This sort of dishonourable and dishonest business behaviour, if it can be proven beyond any doubt, should be put up on as many forums around the world as possible, so as to warn other unsuspecting buyers. Let's not protect suppliers who do this sort of thing. Again, I'm not accusing a specific seller, but Westie1 has just put up some of the appropriate evidence.

I can't see why it would be a problem if tobster were willing to do the same. Of course, he shouldn't be obliged to do so.

By the way. I think you will believe it to be your business if you get burnt in the same way sometime in the future and you may wish that the supplier's conduct had been identified, so as to forewarn you.

My last post on this as I think we'll differ on this all day given the chance

The problem with what you suggest is that it is not fact that will get posted (that's not to say it's not truthful), it is opinion, speculation, etc. To make it fact you need to present evidence, copies of email for example. And that raises the question of why? It's enough for us to know that something happened. Why do we need the detail, and who are we to decide if a seller is reputable or not? (other than in our own mind)

IMO it's good to have some feedback about a seller, but no more than that.

Westie, good luck with the hunt!

...

Probably.



I think that what Westie1 last posted counts as evidence, not opinion. At worst it's uncorroberated fact.



And this would easily be corroberated by itemised phone bill and or debit or credit card statement. Also, the time that the ad was pulled/modified is a matter of record, i.e. a fact, not an opinion.



If it's based on opinion, then we don't know something happened. We only know if we have facts. If tobster was to confirm the time he contacted the supplier and provide evidence of when he paid, we would then have all the facts that we need, so as to know for sure and not just have an opinion.



Well, we are probably all at the buyer beware stage, but why should any supplier get away with dishonourable and dishonest business practices, without being exposed to the wider public, specifically in the case of FCCUK members and visitors being the most likely to buy cars that this particular supplier may have to offer.



On this last point we are in complete agreement.

And evidence I do have..my credit card statement when the deposit was taken, phone bill itemising when I called along with an email from Harry Slater at Lyles sent on 14th February saying how pleased he was that I had decided to leave a deposit on the car as it would be a shame for me to miss out and asking for my full details. I really wish now that I had come onto the forum for some advice about the situation when it happened as I may not have been so hasty in accepting what they told me. It really is disgraceful.

Quote Pigman {Well, we are probably all at the buyer beware stage, but why should any supplier get away with dishonourable and dishonest business practices, without being exposed to the wider public, specifically in the case of FCCUK members and visitors being the most likely to buy cars that this particular supplier may have to offer.}

Small point but you seem to assume that the supplier is the dealer who was the legal owner of the car.

Seems to me the dealer was selling the car on behalf of someone else, either on a commission or fixed price basis.

If the dealer accepts a deposit in good faith and the owner then realised the car was under priced and withdraws the car from that sale,whats the dealer to do? They can't complete a sale on a car that they don't own.

Westie sorry you've had a bad start to coupe ownership, but you will find the right car and you can spend as much time as the rest of us .......checking the oil, etc

Unless you have some facts to support your comments, then you are just speculating. However, I agree that all parties in such a scenario have the right to put forward their side of the story.

Do you know for certain that the supplier was selling on a commission basis, or are you simply offering a hypothetical reason for the supplier to be innocent?

Err.....you could try reading Westie's post

Part quote from yesterday [ I was told by Lyles that the car belonged to John Macdonald of Macdonald Racing and even though he had also been involved in the discussions and had agreed to sell the car to me I was no longer able to buy it.]

So its doesn't seem clear to me who was really responsible for withdrawing the sale. It could have been the dealer, the owner or both of them. So to post comments about dodgy dealing, etc seems a bit risky to me.

Anyway got to go and check my oil level now

Yes lost55, my apologies. I either forgot reading that part of Westie1's post as quoted below or skipped over it. This doesn't put Lyles in the clear, but perhaps will teach them some kind of lesson when selling a customer's vehicle on comission.



So we are left to decide whether it was the car's owner, John Macdonald, or the dealer Lyles, or whether they were in cahoots together after realising that they could get a better price. I still feel that the dealer has responsibility, however, as they enter into a contract to sell on behalf. Either way, their conduct looks very dodgy.

This is a matter between those parties directly involved.

This forum is neither judge nor jury.

We have a system of law to deal with such disputes.