Horrible Experience with Norwood Autocraft! Beware of Bob Norwood

Yes, but I'm beginning to think BN hasn't seen the thread. It seems very out of character for him based on my own biz dealings with him in the past.

Perhaps someone should call him directly?

This is a bizarre situation IMHO, and it makes zero sense.

I know you didn't run your biz this way.


Sent by itsy bitsy electrons

 

You have to read the fine print, or ask.

Some deposits or refundable, or some are not.

You are asking (as noted in this long thread) the seller to freeze the deal, and if he has multiple tire kickers.....er, um....buyers, then he may well have lost other sale options in the meantime.

"if you don't like it, when you get here, I will give it back" is a common posture I have seen.

Trouble here is, the OP never got there to put his butt in the seat.
Big mistake, from where I sit..

 

As a member of a service industry, the customer is always right. Return the deposit no matter how right Norwood feels he is to keep it. Reselling the car proves no damages, just lost time. Like Norwood hasn't ever lost his time in a transaction before... Just a part of the business, dude.

I would guess that returning the money with a tacit apology to the OP for the misunderstanding would gain more benefit than the loss by not doing so.

 

And therein lies the rub-- there's been no definitive info regarding the nature of the deposit. The question was asked early on but the only detail I remember was that Bob's employee said they had agreed to return the deposit if the buyer did not like the car when he saw it in person. I don't think the situation is nearly as clear cut as the lynch mob is making it out to be, so I'm not forming an opinion one way or another. Novel concept, huh?

 

Here you go, Bob. This is how you handle a customer: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/ferrari-discussion-not-model-specific-sponsored-algar-ferrari/521016-anyone-out-there-dealt-cats-exotics.html

 

Not novel at all. It makes pretty good sense to me.


Sent by itsy bitsy electrons

 

All of this discussion has me wondering what purpose a deposit is supposed to serve in the first place. I always figured it was a way to buy first right of refusal for a deal to purchase the car. If a deposit is automatically supposed to be refunded if the potential buyer opts out, where is the incentive for the seller to take one in the first place? In that case he's better off saying "first here with the cash buys the car" since taking a deposit that he *has* to refund means taking the car off the market until the potential buyer gets around to deciding whether he wants (and can afford) the car, and in the meantime potentially losing out on a real sale while a flakey “buyer” indulges his ego.

Personally, I always consider deposits non-refundable. If the seller chooses to refund it anyway that's going above and beyond, which definitely makes the seller look good. But I don't see where the seller is obligated to return a deposit if a buyer changes his mind.

Again, I don't know the specifics of this particular deal so the above is just general commentary in response to the posts saying that deposits should automatically be returned. If that's the case I'm never taking another deposit again in my life-- there's simply no reason to do so.

 

The way you alleviate this problem is to have a deposit and a time limit. If the sale isn't consummated by the time limit, the deposit goes back.

Keep your time limit short if you are having problems with tire kickers.

 

Best post of the thread award goes to you!

 

But why take a deposit in the first place in that case? I'm not setting you up or trying to argue, just wondering.

I can see taking a deposit when the potential buyer is not within driving distance or has scheduling issues that preclude seeing the car in short order. But in that case the car is not available for purchase, and an actual sale might be lost in the meantime. So I see that deposit as the potential buyer paying the seller to avoid selling the car for X amount of time, meaning that the seller is compensated for keeping the car off the market if the potential buyer backs out.

 

Unless, of course, the buyer changes his mind due to the failure of the seller to perform as contracted.

Deposits are conditional. Both parties have obligations under the contract, either party fails to hold to their conditions, that party forfeits the deposit. Buyer or seller. In this case, product was not as represented, seller forfeits the deposit, back to the buyer.


D

 

That makes a certain amount of sense, Dave. Thanks.

Of course, in this particular case we don't know the conditions specified-- it sounds like they may not have been clearly laid out, but we don't know that for certain. On top of that, we have strong disagreement between the two parties as to whether or not the car is as represented by the seller. So it's easy to see how both parties might think they're in the right, but even that is leaping to a conclusion since we don't know the specifics.

I guess the big lesson here is to clearly lay out the conditions of a deposit before sending one. Like I said earlier, I've always considered them non-refundable, so when placing a deposit I already fully expect to lose it if I don't follow through on my end of the deal. If the deal did collapse due to my failure to perform and the seller returned my deposit anyway I'd certainly have warm fuzzies toward him and would be predisposed to do business with him in the future, but I wouldn't be all irate if he didn't.

 

A deposit can also be considered earnest money. In this case the $2000 tells the seller that this buyer is seriously interested in the car. This as opposed to the "tire kicker" who has no intention, nor likely the means, to purchase the vehicle, and would never leave a deposit.

 

Protips for the day -

OP - Say no more in this thread until Paypal gives you your money back.
If you get any flack whatsoever, charge-it back with your card company. Paypal will always refund under the circumstances. But, you really never have to go that far.

Seller - never take Paypal as a deposit if you intend to keep deposits against the buyers will. But, be warned that buyers will sense it.
Make deposits larger, say 10% at least. More skin in the game keeps the game going longer.
Give deposits back willingly when buyer wants out, you will get great word of mouth. Don't be desperate. Your running a business.
Don't have people that work for you, that can't spell, engage in Internet forum wars. Say nothing at all if your employee(s) aren't suited.
And lastly, when it appears you have lost your Internet trial DO THE RIGHT THING if the money is peanuts. Really, you should always do the right thing, but that seems to be a slippery slope and up for debate too often these days. Most of us are clear on it.
$2000 is peanuts compared to your reputation. It's just business.

You can unwind this nonsense by giving the OP his money back before Paypal does, saying it was all a big misunderstanding and that you apologize. It really is best at this point, even if you feel it is wrong. Remember, it is only $2000. This crap is never worth that.

It's hard to believe this thread at all. But alas, here it is.

 

Karim, someone has to check into rehab too, don't they?

 

In all honesty, that is probably the best way to do this in the first place.

"The car is here, want to see it - come on over. No deposit required."

Don't want to see it, Stay home. No big deal but it's out the door to the first person with X amount in hand.




Problem solved.

 

Nice theory. Not many do it though

 

Years ago we had a very iffy car dealers locally, and one day, fresh in a new sales job I was driving past and decided to look for a nice BMW to go with the bright suit and white socks! I looked around and found a really nice 95 328i coupe.... But it was at the back of the lot, and I had no time to test drive.

Salesman says 'don't worry, deposit on it, and come back Monday, if you like it, buy it, if not, money back' so I give him £250 on my card

Anyhow, just in the new job, my dad talks sense to me 'no new car till you know you can earn the money for servicing etc', so I think, wow, unfair to those guys to wait till Monday to find out I won't be buying, I ring them first thing Saturday morning, with the thought that I'm allowing them to release the car for sale much earlier, and since they are a high turnover lot, it will probably be gone pretty quickly. They thank me, and I ask, and they assure me, deposit will go back on my card

I'm not worried, I allow a week before I check the card, but no money. I ring them, now the attitude is '**** you, you didn't test drive, so no refund'

Nasty, but back then, I had friends, so I pick up a lovely Glaswegian fella we used to call 'time bomb' and we go to the garage together. The attitude of the firm is, let's talk outside, and all of a sudden there's half a dozen failing car salesmen, mostly ex cons by the look of them, milling around. Time bomb simply took from his pocket a big bottle of brake fluid, held it high and open over the brand new Mercedes in front of us, and we got our deposit and money for our time and efforts pretty quickly.

There's a little more fun that was had, but I've learnt to be careful and coy in the web!

 

Well, there's a bit of an elephant in the room here. Sure, he can pay the OP back, and he can apologize while telling us all it's just a big misunderstanding. However, that's not the case, and I'm sure most of us if not all of us, know this by now.

If this was about a misunderstanding, Mr. Norwood and his associate should have realized that by now. In my eyes, he has zero credibility left when it comes to making amends. The way I see it is as if he actually did that now, it would be because of pressure, not goodwill. He should still pay the OP back, but the credibility of any explanation or apology is gone in my eyes - it is simply too late for that. There are so many missed opportunities here to make it believable and that's a major problem. As I've stated before, this looks like a case of ego and arrogance getting in the way of common sense and good business ethics.

 

If something is not 100% as advertised ... I mean 100% ....the deposit should be returned.
Error in an ad, or no error. Misunderstanding or not.
Time you wasted, or not.
Period. Money should be refunded.

 

Great story! Reminds of the Mark Twain quote-

"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

 

I wouldnt say they are always right, but i would say its better to treat them as if they are right.

A difference, even if subtle.

Truth. Id also say (since I own a business that takes deposits) , unless the customer gives me a really solid, legitimate reason to not refund the deposit, we do refund. Even if we take it in the rear a bit.

Out of thousands of deposits taken every month, I bet we only refuse to refund a dozen or so per year.

Even when customer is in the wrong we refund. We simply put them on the black list.

 

Why take a deposit on a house? I have walked from two houses after the inspections came back. They were so bad I didn't even offer them the chance to fix I just said no deal. Deposits were returned.