Reclaiming my car via small claims, worth it?

Volcano

He's violent but he's 120 miles away. That is a scenario that many women would gladly pay £300 for. You might be annoyed, but you're safer (and happier surely?) without him.

anewman

Registered keeper is not the same as the owner. The biggest obvious example here is if buying a car on finance, legally the finance company owns it. Although your permission would be needed to make someone else the registered keeper.

Sorry but I think he's in the right. If you really do owe him £300, then £300 is what's needed. Registered keeper or not is irrelevant.

BeenieCat

Volcano wrote: »

He's violent but he's 120 miles away. That is a scenario that many women would gladly pay £300 for. You might be annoyed, but you're safer (and happier surely?) without him.

Annoyed isn't the word. I bought the car when he was living away from me and we weren't together.

Stupidly i then took him back and he moved back in, the car has always been mine, has never made any claim to it til now.

Now he's decided he wants to turn on me and get violent, leaving me with no money and no car, while 5 months pregnant and my son to look after!

It makes me feel so sick that he's made claim to my car, i need the car! I completely deny owing him a penny - he wrote that off a long time ago and it's never been mentioned again til now.

So lets say he gave me a monetary "gift" one year ago, then one year later denies this "gift" and says "oh actually i changed my mind about the gift, i'll take you car thank you v.much". That's okay?? :mad::mad::mad:

:eek:

Volcano

Ok, my advice is purely from watching 'Judge Judy' repeats :rolleyes: but.....

A gift is a gift and not expected to be paid back. A loan is just that; if you accept money knowing it's a loan it's completely at the discretion of the person lending the money whether you have to pay it back or not. Basically if he asks for it back then you have to pay up.

The guy clearly is a complete a$$-hole and given his behaviour then it really is a case of good riddance.

RobertoMoir

BeenieCat wrote: »

I'm not sure to be honest, but he'd been violent towards me and as he lives 120 miles away he had refused to leave the house (my tenancy) unless he could take the car.

Well the police should have been able to force him to leave in order to keep the peace. He might have come straight back again though, but at that point he could be locked up IIRC.

They said if i wanted him gone then i should let him take it, to "keep the peace" :rolleyes: Actually i'm so angry i "let" him take it, i really didn't want him to have the keys in the first place but he was forceful in taking them from me.

He took the keys by force? And the police were not interested? Make sure you emphasise that in any other complaint you make about this.

I did ask police if i agreed to let him borrow it, then could i ring them when he doesn't bring it back, based on their advice? They said not really since he's saying he paid for it, and we can't prove otherwise.

Complete bollox. If they couldn't do anything whenever someone claimed to have already paid for it honest then every thief in the company would be getting off with burglary and shoplifting by simply claiming they paid for the stuff honest, they just can't find the till recepit or that it wasn't burglary because they met the homeowner in the pub last night and they sold all the goods in their house for a tenner, honest they did, they then turned awkward about collecting it.

Can't do anything indeed. I think they meant to say "We'd love to help but our tea is getting cold back at the station"

Surely he should have to prove he paid for it, and in the meantime i should be allowed my car, until he can prove he owns it?

Yes. Of course. I'd be complaing to the duty inspector at this point. As I said before, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the arguement with you and your ex, how on earth the police thought their "solution" would solve anything is beyond me. The ones who suggested it to you are either idiots of the highest order or blatently couldn't give a monkey's.

RobertoMoir

Volcano wrote: »

He's violent but he's 120 miles away. That is a scenario that many women would gladly pay £300 for. You might be annoyed, but you're safer (and happier surely?) without him.

You know, if this was an arguement over a £300 bill where it really was dubious about who should have paid what, I'd totally agree. But while I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, essentially what you're saying there is might makes right. Because he's a violent bully he can have whatever he wants and the OP just has to put up with it, essentially.

Can't support that one, I'm afraid.

Volcano

RobertoMoir wrote: »

But while I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, essentially what you're saying there is might makes right. Because he's a violent bully he can have whatever he wants and the OP just has to put up with it, essentially.

Can't support that one, I'm afraid.

No, I just have first hand experience of how the police generally couldn't care less about females in danger from violent ex-partners and how her options appear to be drastically limited. Given the situation that she appears to have 1 child, is 5 months pregnant with another, lives on her own, has little money, local police who don't care and the risk of inflaming a potentially violent ex, then the £300 (or even the principle of it) isn't so attractive.

If it was me then I'd do whatever was necessary to get the car back, but then my personal situation is a lot more favourable than the OP's.

BeenieCat

Thanks for the replies so far, he has text me to say he intends to keep the car (followed by a text saying he might return it, but in his time not mine:rolleyes:)

So i've called the local plod again and basically they don't know how i can get the car back - they suggested taking him off the insurance so he can't drive it, but i said well that won't help me get the car back will it?

So they put me through to some helpline where i left a vm for someone to call back....

BeenieCat

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

So i got a call back from police. Basically, if you buy yourself a car, and then enter into a relationship with someone and let them have use of car, it becomes joint property.

I'm furious, this is SO SO SO unfair and i can not believe this, i wish i had known this before he moved in as i might have thought twice about getting him insured on it.

This is outrageous, i'm so upset/angry.

So his parting words were "get yourself a solicitor".

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

BeenieCat

Okay so i've just contacted the legal advice line which i get with my Barclays account.

They told me that what the police said about it is joint ownership is not true and advised me to write ex a letter, confirming that i have now revoked any permission he was granted to use my vehicle, and giving him 7 days to return it.

If he then ignores this letter and doesn't return the car/money car is worth, then i have 2 options:

1- Go to police (:rolleyes:) and state that i have given him 7 days to return it which has now lapsed and that i wish for it to be treated as stolen. If they do not pursue, i can complain to them.

2 - Pursue him through the small claims court for the money the car is worth.

The fact that he gave me money last year, can be argued in court but as long as i state it was a gift then it should have no bearing on the case.
Of course, if i lose this then it will cost more than the car did (he didn't say this though!).

I'm no further forward - i shouldn't have to go through this hassle, it's so so so unfair.