Porsche 911UK Forum

Welcome to the @Porsche911UK website. Register a free account today to become a member! Sign up is quick and easy, then you can view, participate in topics and posts across the site that covers all things Porsche.

Already registered and looking to recovery your account, select 'login in' and then the 'forget your password' option.

Friends Green Porsche - Bad Experience now Resolved, but...

Re: Friends Green Porsche - Bad Experience

porsche996aero said:
Hi guys. Long time lurker here. I wouldn't normally air my dirty laundry in public but I thought I should probably share a pretty unpleasant experience I've had over the last week or so with friends green porsche.

TLDR: seller withholding deposit after I decided not to buy a car with a major engine issue flagged up by my independent inspection!

I'll spare you the majority of the tedious details, but suffice to say I went to see one of the silver 'factory fitted' aerokit 996s (turns out there's no evidence the kit was factory fitted) from him last week and put down a (fully refundable, given any issues found) deposit on it. The PPI that I had carried out by Porsche Inspections then flagged up a serious issue with the engine (camshaft deviation readings way out of spec). We discussed options for his garage carrying out remedial work, after which I decided not to go ahead with the sale - it's quite possible that the engine will need a complete rebuild in the near future, which unsurprisingly wasn't on the cards.

Unfortunately, he's now flatly refusing to refund my £500 deposit in full and I'm going to have to explore other avenues to reclaim it from him. Caveat emptor!

Interested to know if others have had any similar experiences?

Of course the thread cannot be deleted due to the sites Ts and Cs. The OP can of course delete his own posts, but not mine that quote them.

I only logged on to this thread as I though it was going to be about his friends green Porsche.

Glad all has now been sorted amicably, and good luck in the future FGP.
 
Well Finally phew , But it has been a fun couple of days reading. and on a positive FGP it would normally cost more than £500 in marketing to move up the internet rankings by one or two places :grin: :grin:

I am happy to remove my posts for mmmm er well £500 :floor: :floor: :floor: oh ok £250 as its you :grin: :grin: :thumb:

now can we have a thread about what I was expecting which was about an
eco 911 owned by the OPs mate, I remember the aircooled 911 that is now battery powered thought this was going to be similar :grin:
 
It's not damaged trade too much as noticed the yellow car is now showing deposit taken, Glad FGP saw sense and did the right thing and hopefully they move on and build a business sourcing great cars we all love.
 
New997buyer said:

Formby - LEGEND!! I was outside his old house the other year in St Annes.

Still love Auntie Maggie's remedy.


oh go on then :grin:

77 years old!! :eek:

 
FriendsGreenPorsche 12 Feb 2018 12:10 am said:
So I would never normally reply to any thread on the internet relating to us, but I will on this occasion as an unfair account of events is being described.

Said buyer agreed to buy a car, but on the agreement that it didn't have any significant problems upon an independent inspection. If it showed any such problems, the deposit would then be refundable upon request.

The independent inspection showed a camshaft deviation. The buyer seeked advice from the independent inspection company as well as our designated Porsche specialist. Both advised it was likely to be worn timing chain between the camshafts, and worn tensioner pads.

Upon learning this, the buyer did not request the deposit back, but instead discussed and entered in to a new agreement to have this work done by our designated specialist. We agreed that if said works did not resolve the issue then the deposit would then become refundable. The specialist is busy for the next couple of weeks so we arranged for him to collect the car and then drop it with the specialist on the arranged date to be fixed. At no point did he raise issue with this arrangement.

After this agreement had been entered, parts had been ordered and arrangements with the garage had been made, the buyer rings to say he's changed his mind and wants his deposit back. I politely explained the above to which the buyer responded badly, threatening to write bad things on the internet if he did not get the refund. It is correct that I offered to refund half the amount out of goodwill, which I thought reasonable.

Lastly, r.e. the aero kit. Sometimes the factory aero kits fail to have the relative code on the option sticker. All the parts (spoiler, skirts, bumper) are genuine Porsche parts, so it is hard to distinguish whether it has been added later or not. The buyer knew about the lack of code upon first viewing of the car and said it wasn't an issue to him. He agreed to buy the car after discussing the aero kit.

We have never had an issue like this with a customer before and feel we have acted fairly in this instance.

FGP.

FriendsGreenPorsche 12 Feb 2018 11:13 am said:
The buyer has entered in to a legally binding agreement. He negotiated the terms of this agreement, which were; the issue found with the car would be remedied by the works suggested by two Porsche specialist mechanics. However, if this work did not remedy the issue, the deposit would be fully refundable.

This scenario has not been the case. Works on the car have not even began -
the buyer has simply changed his mind. We have not breached this agreement and would still happily fulfil it. It is the buyer that is breaching the agreement and he is therefore not legally entitled to the deposit back.

R.e. the suggestion that the car may not be fit for purpose: It may be arguable that upon finding the camshaft deviation issue the car was not fit for purpose, but this is why the buyer negotiated a new agreement whereby the issue would be fixed and thus the car fit for purpose. The term involving the deposit being refundable if this work did not remedy the issue safe guarded his position by securing that he would either have a car without fault, or his money returned.

We would never normally confront a customer like this and always try to achieve satisfaction, which is why our reputation is good, but at what point do you draw the line and determine that the customer is pushing the small business around and using the threat of damaging their reputation as ammunition.

I think that all the facts with this have now been detailed in this thread and I hope people can draw their own conclusions from this. I stand by that a goodwill offer of £250 was a fair and reasonable offer to make and would still have no problem in fulfilling this.

FGP.

FriendsGreenPorsche 13 Feb 2018 05:23 pm said:
Dear all

The buyer and I have come to an agreement. He is having his deposit refunded in full as requested and this thread is being removed.

The car is scheduled to have the remedial work completed on 16/02/2018.

The company's existence coming to an end is a totally separate and unrelated issue. It was formed circa 18 months ago, but I decided to remain trading as a sole trader rather than under a limited company. The company was therefore never used and has no online accounts. There will be no new company formed and no new business name as some have anticipated; I will remain trading as Friends Green Porsche.

The premises is owned by myself and my Brother. It is an old farm with a farm house that I live in and old agricultural buildings permitted for business use.

It is astonishing that I am having to answer to personal issues such as my home on the internet, but unfortunately some felt it necessary to critic on these things.

I am thankful to the people that have been reading this thread and contacted by email to say they could understand my position. To those of you who did not, but wrote in a reasoned manner, i respect your opinions.

It was never about the money here, it was about the principle of someone messing you around and backing out of an agreement when you are just trying to run a business. However, I hold my hands up and admit that it is lesson learnt with this one. It is not worth the grief - The customer is always right.

All the best
FGP

The deposit is scheduled to refunded in full on what date ....?
 
Just in case:

911UK said:
FriendsGreenPorsche 12 Feb 2018 12:10 am said:
So I would never normally reply to any thread on the internet relating to us, but I will on this occasion as an unfair account of events is being described.

Said buyer agreed to buy a car, but on the agreement that it didn't have any significant problems upon an independent inspection. If it showed any such problems, the deposit would then be refundable upon request.

The independent inspection showed a camshaft deviation. The buyer seeked advice from the independent inspection company as well as our designated Porsche specialist. Both advised it was likely to be worn timing chain between the camshafts, and worn tensioner pads.

Upon learning this, the buyer did not request the deposit back, but instead discussed and entered in to a new agreement to have this work done by our designated specialist. We agreed that if said works did not resolve the issue then the deposit would then become refundable. The specialist is busy for the next couple of weeks so we arranged for him to collect the car and then drop it with the specialist on the arranged date to be fixed. At no point did he raise issue with this arrangement.

After this agreement had been entered, parts had been ordered and arrangements with the garage had been made, the buyer rings to say he's changed his mind and wants his deposit back. I politely explained the above to which the buyer responded badly, threatening to write bad things on the internet if he did not get the refund. It is correct that I offered to refund half the amount out of goodwill, which I thought reasonable.

Lastly, r.e. the aero kit. Sometimes the factory aero kits fail to have the relative code on the option sticker. All the parts (spoiler, skirts, bumper) are genuine Porsche parts, so it is hard to distinguish whether it has been added later or not. The buyer knew about the lack of code upon first viewing of the car and said it wasn't an issue to him. He agreed to buy the car after discussing the aero kit.

We have never had an issue like this with a customer before and feel we have acted fairly in this instance.

FGP.

FriendsGreenPorsche 12 Feb 2018 11:13 am said:
The buyer has entered in to a legally binding agreement. He negotiated the terms of this agreement, which were; the issue found with the car would be remedied by the works suggested by two Porsche specialist mechanics. However, if this work did not remedy the issue, the deposit would be fully refundable.

This scenario has not been the case. Works on the car have not even began -
the buyer has simply changed his mind. We have not breached this agreement and would still happily fulfil it. It is the buyer that is breaching the agreement and he is therefore not legally entitled to the deposit back.

R.e. the suggestion that the car may not be fit for purpose: It may be arguable that upon finding the camshaft deviation issue the car was not fit for purpose, but this is why the buyer negotiated a new agreement whereby the issue would be fixed and thus the car fit for purpose. The term involving the deposit being refundable if this work did not remedy the issue safe guarded his position by securing that he would either have a car without fault, or his money returned.

We would never normally confront a customer like this and always try to achieve satisfaction, which is why our reputation is good, but at what point do you draw the line and determine that the customer is pushing the small business around and using the threat of damaging their reputation as ammunition.

I think that all the facts with this have now been detailed in this thread and I hope people can draw their own conclusions from this. I stand by that a goodwill offer of £250 was a fair and reasonable offer to make and would still have no problem in fulfilling this.

FGP.

FriendsGreenPorsche 13 Feb 2018 05:23 pm said:
Dear all

The buyer and I have come to an agreement. He is having his deposit refunded in full as requested and this thread is being removed.

The car is scheduled to have the remedial work completed on 16/02/2018.

The company's existence coming to an end is a totally separate and unrelated issue. It was formed circa 18 months ago, but I decided to remain trading as a sole trader rather than under a limited company. The company was therefore never used and has no online accounts. There will be no new company formed and no new business name as some have anticipated; I will remain trading as Friends Green Porsche.

The premises is owned by myself and my Brother. It is an old farm with a farm house that I live in and old agricultural buildings permitted for business use.

It is astonishing that I am having to answer to personal issues such as my home on the internet, but unfortunately some felt it necessary to critic on these things.

I am thankful to the people that have been reading this thread and contacted by email to say they could understand my position. To those of you who did not, but wrote in a reasoned manner, i respect your opinions.

It was never about the money here, it was about the principle of someone messing you around and backing out of an agreement when you are just trying to run a business. However, I hold my hands up and admit that it is lesson learnt with this one. It is not worth the grief - The customer is always right.

All the best
FGP

The deposit is scheduled to refunded in full on what date ....?
 
alex yates said:
Just in case:

911UK said:
FriendsGreenPorsche 12 Feb 2018 12:10 am said:
So I would never normally reply to any thread on the internet relating to us, but I will on this occasion as an unfair account of events is being described.

Said buyer agreed to buy a car, but on the agreement that it didn't have any significant problems upon an independent inspection. If it showed any such problems, the deposit would then be refundable upon request.

The independent inspection showed a camshaft deviation. The buyer seeked advice from the independent inspection company as well as our designated Porsche specialist. Both advised it was likely to be worn timing chain between the camshafts, and worn tensioner pads.

Upon learning this, the buyer did not request the deposit back, but instead discussed and entered in to a new agreement to have this work done by our designated specialist. We agreed that if said works did not resolve the issue then the deposit would then become refundable. The specialist is busy for the next couple of weeks so we arranged for him to collect the car and then drop it with the specialist on the arranged date to be fixed. At no point did he raise issue with this arrangement.

After this agreement had been entered, parts had been ordered and arrangements with the garage had been made, the buyer rings to say he's changed his mind and wants his deposit back. I politely explained the above to which the buyer responded badly, threatening to write bad things on the internet if he did not get the refund. It is correct that I offered to refund half the amount out of goodwill, which I thought reasonable.

Lastly, r.e. the aero kit. Sometimes the factory aero kits fail to have the relative code on the option sticker. All the parts (spoiler, skirts, bumper) are genuine Porsche parts, so it is hard to distinguish whether it has been added later or not. The buyer knew about the lack of code upon first viewing of the car and said it wasn't an issue to him. He agreed to buy the car after discussing the aero kit.

We have never had an issue like this with a customer before and feel we have acted fairly in this instance.

FGP.

FriendsGreenPorsche 12 Feb 2018 11:13 am said:
The buyer has entered in to a legally binding agreement. He negotiated the terms of this agreement, which were; the issue found with the car would be remedied by the works suggested by two Porsche specialist mechanics. However, if this work did not remedy the issue, the deposit would be fully refundable.

This scenario has not been the case. Works on the car have not even began -
the buyer has simply changed his mind. We have not breached this agreement and would still happily fulfil it. It is the buyer that is breaching the agreement and he is therefore not legally entitled to the deposit back.

R.e. the suggestion that the car may not be fit for purpose: It may be arguable that upon finding the camshaft deviation issue the car was not fit for purpose, but this is why the buyer negotiated a new agreement whereby the issue would be fixed and thus the car fit for purpose. The term involving the deposit being refundable if this work did not remedy the issue safe guarded his position by securing that he would either have a car without fault, or his money returned.

We would never normally confront a customer like this and always try to achieve satisfaction, which is why our reputation is good, but at what point do you draw the line and determine that the customer is pushing the small business around and using the threat of damaging their reputation as ammunition.

I think that all the facts with this have now been detailed in this thread and I hope people can draw their own conclusions from this. I stand by that a goodwill offer of £250 was a fair and reasonable offer to make and would still have no problem in fulfilling this.

FGP.

FriendsGreenPorsche 13 Feb 2018 05:23 pm said:
Dear all

The buyer and I have come to an agreement. He is having his deposit refunded in full as requested and this thread is being removed.

The car is scheduled to have the remedial work completed on 16/02/2018.

The company's existence coming to an end is a totally separate and unrelated issue. It was formed circa 18 months ago, but I decided to remain trading as a sole trader rather than under a limited company. The company was therefore never used and has no online accounts. There will be no new company formed and no new business name as some have anticipated; I will remain trading as Friends Green Porsche.

The premises is owned by myself and my Brother. It is an old farm with a farm house that I live in and old agricultural buildings permitted for business use.

It is astonishing that I am having to answer to personal issues such as my home on the internet, but unfortunately some felt it necessary to critic on these things.

I am thankful to the people that have been reading this thread and contacted by email to say they could understand my position. To those of you who did not, but wrote in a reasoned manner, i respect your opinions.

It was never about the money here, it was about the principle of someone messing you around and backing out of an agreement when you are just trying to run a business. However, I hold my hands up and admit that it is lesson learnt with this one. It is not worth the grief - The customer is always right.

All the best
FGP

The deposit is scheduled to refunded in full on what date ....?

Just in Just in case
 
So what happens to the car in question now? Seems it will just be sold on to the next poor soul with the trader in full knowledge the engine has a serious issue. Nice.
 
FriendsGreenPorsche said:
The car is scheduled to have the remedial work completed on 16/02/2018.

Make of that what you will :thumb:
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
124,350
Messages
1,439,419
Members
48,707
Latest member
race911turbo
Back
Top