Complex one - taking ownership of an abandoned car

jammin_2

Ginger_Nuts wrote: »

Got three new cars today in Tescos car park, this is a great new money savers idea

!!!!!! Ginger Nuts, if you don't get it, just hush would you. :rolleyes:

Motmac

jammin wrote: »

!!!!!! Ginger Nuts, if you don't get it, just hush would you. :rolleyes:

Why should he? he's just voicing his opinion and has put his views across well...so because its different to your view then he shouldnt post??:rolleyes:

itsallaboutthemoney

jammin, who told us that again? oh yeah, the guy trying to steal their car.....

regardless of how their misfortune came about, you can't really use it as justification for OPs actions.

jammin_2

Motmac wrote:

Why should he? he's just voicing his opinion and has put his views across well...so because its different to your view then he shouldnt post??:rolleyes:

Because, as has been pointed out time and time again on this thread, from what the OP has described, the law is on his side, should he wish to acquire the vehicle.

itsallaboutthemoney wrote:

jammin, who told us that again? oh yeah, the guy trying to steal their car.....

regardless of how their misfortune came about, you can't really use it as justification for OPs actions.

Yes, the OP, the guy who is trying to legally acquire the vehicle, told us that the neighbours have done a runner to Spain and left their house and belongings for repossession. What's your point? And, er, misfortune? What misfortune? We don't know their circumstances for sure, but anyone who can afford to leave a "nearly new" car behind isn't short of a bob or two.

For the record, would I personally do what the OP is suggesting? No. But again, should the OP wish to, the law appears on his side, from what he's described.

My suspicion, however, is that the neighbours intend to either come back and get their car or have someone look after their car for them for the foreseeable. They just haven't got round to it yet, or perhaps don't realise just how bad their situation has got back home.

CHR15

You know when someone dies and the relatives have a huge falling out because some members of the family have been around the house and taken as much as they can carry before it is divided up properly??

I often wonder how these people can live with themselves, Who need morals?

note: grab the car keys first.

itsallaboutthemoney

odd that the OP seems to know the exact country they've made a 'runner' to or was it just the first one that came into his head. By your logic, if you think someone has done something wrong or has done something wrong, then his property is fair game-jungle rules?

Law- what law? their debtors, if they exist, should be entitled to that property. And even if it's on his side, what's legally right does not make something automatically morally right- but this is of no concern to the OP. The only reason he's backed down is probably because it's too much hassle not because he's has a conscience. The fake account was a good move though.

Wig

itsallaboutthemoney wrote: »

odd that the OP seems to know the exact country they've made a 'runner' to or was it just the first one that came into his head. By your logic, if you think someone has done something wrong or has done something wrong, then his property is fair game-jungle rules?

That's not the logic at all, you obviously have not understood what has been written in this thread.

their debtors, if they exist, should be entitled to that property.

No they shouldn't, they made a loan using the house as a security, if their risk did not pay off for them they have only themselves to blame. And if the Spaniard was a tenant - what then is your argument?

And even if it's on his side, what's legally right does not make something automatically morally right-

It's not always automatically morally right, but in this example it is, because there is no loser. And for a time there could be a grateful winner, if the Spaniard comes home, he will be grateful to his neighbour who took the car off the property and kept it for him.

vonfluff

Dear All,

I really can't tell you how frustrated I am to have come on here this morning and found myself being described as a thief. I asked a question about the legality of a situation. No more. I have taken no action.

I appreciate that people may have different opinions to my own. You are welcome to critique and critiscise my opinion. Personal attacks are (in my opinion) unwarranted and unfair.

In answer to some of the questions - how do I know it was Spain? The neighbours in question sold the entire contents of their home to friends of theirs - these friends discussed this when they came to collect them. Our neighbours had family in Spain and had gone for a new start over there - leaving debts over here.

Secondly - was I looking to profit from their misfortune? To the best of my knowledge, they had/have left the car with no intention of returning for it. They would not suffered any further loss through this.

Were I to have registered the car, they would still have remained the owners - I would simply have been the keeper, and as such obliged to return it to them if asked. BTW - that's legal ...not my opinion.

OK ...onto the moral question. In the next few days, this car will be taken away and crushed/scrapped - not because it was unsafe or because it had been driven without tax/insurance - simply because it was parked somewhere and the new owners of the property (The Bank) wanted it moving. Who loses out here? The bank are sending the car to get crushed - would they lose out if instead of crushing it someone made use of it?

The key question here (for me at least) is who loses out? The neighbours who fled to Spain - they abandoned the car. The Bank? - They are sending to get crushed ...probably at their cost.

I am happy to continue this thread - provided people are willing to discuss properly - not just snipe. I started this thread to garner peoples opinions - If you have a point, please make it. State your case and explain it. There is no justification for hiding behind a username and spitting bile and it seems quite against the purposes of these forums.

On a final point - I'm not wholly sure what your reference to a fake account is. This is the first and only account I have on here. I've never felt the need to ask a question on here before.

cyclonebri1

Sorry, I do think you raised valid issues and several posters have tried to make it personnal.

I admire your restraint in not biting back and in the trouble you have taken to explain yourself.

I would have bitten back:mad:

Some people seem to get off on slating newcomers, believe me there have been worse responses than this. I only hope it has'nt soured the forums for you:beer:

Wig

vonfluff wrote: »

Were I to have registered the car, they would still have remained the owners - I would simply have been the keeper, and as such obliged to return it to them if asked. BTW - that's legal ...not my opinion.

I believe you are mistaken on this point, the law of abandoned property will come into play, any property that is abandoned becomes the property of the finder (should they wish it to be). Perhaps you are confusing it with 'lost' property. In this case the owner knows where he left the car, and also could easily find it if he did not know where he left it. In such a case it is classed as abandoned not lost.

In this case, informing the DVLA of your new keeper application, allows the DVLA to ask the previous keeper if they have any objections, it also allows the old keeper to contact you within a reasonable time if for example they actually wanted the car were unaware the house was to be reposessed did not recieve the DVLA letter, upon returning to find the car gone they can contact the DVLA for the new keeper details.

Now it only remains a matter of opinion as to how long in this case the old keeper has a legal right to the vehicle. If they were fully aware that the house was in repossession procedure and they stopped paying the mortgage, sold all their stuff and none of their friends wanted the car, and they left the car deliberately abandoning it, then that car becomes your property on the day that you take it.

If however we want to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that they will not recieve the DVLA letter and that they do want the car, and are unaware of the repossion order - or are unaware of how fast things are moving or are unaware that leaving the car there puts it at risk of being disposed of............. then it becomes a matter of opinion as to how long would be reasonable to allow for them to come and claim their car. Anything from 14 days, or 3 months to a year and definately no more than a year would seem reasonable to me. After which time the car becomes your property.