Reclaiming my car via small claims, worth it?

RobertoMoir

BeenieCat wrote: »

: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.

This is shockingly bad advice.

I would say that I'd think about what volcano has said too if I were in your shoes. When I disagreed with what they said I was talking about principles and they're talking about what they see as practicalities. While I'm sure you're in the right to pursue this if you want, you do need to be sure it's worth the hassle to make that stick.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Actually, as you're being picky, I think you'll find it meets their definition.

Really. Who owns the car? He says he does. She says she does.

Who has the receipt?

BeenieCat

There is no receipt. I bought it from friend's dad's friend(!). Friend's dad dealt with it, i just gave him the money and picked it up from his house! He then passed this onto his mate, who i never met.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Can you prove this?

BeenieCat

Well i'm sure friend and friend's dad would back me up but not sure if this would count as "proof"

RobertoMoir

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Really. Who owns the car? He says he does. She says she does.

Who has the receipt?

As I say, if "he said he owned it" was a legitimate excuse for stealing then why isn't every shoplifter in the country getting let off by simply claiming "I did buy it honest I did"? That's basically what you're saying, and with the greatest of respect, it doesn't stand up.

Now the question of the car ownership vs the loan, and proof might be interesting but it doesn't mean that the car wasn't stolen. It was taken by deception and with intent to permanently deprive the person who appears most likely to be the owner of its use. Hence, as I said in my initial reply to you, it meets a commonly used definition of theft and regardless of the ultimate outcome, the police ought to take a complaint about this matter seriously. I hope that clears things up for you.

Debt_Free_Chick

BeenieCat wrote: »

They told me that what the police said about it is joint ownership is not true

Oh, good - as I was about to suggest that the Police's comment was incorrect.

I think the legal position over ownership is tricky however. Normally, anything you buy with your own money is yours.

However, it seems that you bought this car with his money. In the absence of you repaying him, then I would say that the car is, technically and legally, his. Sorry.

RobertoMoir

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Oh, good - as I was about to suggest that the Police's comment was incorrect.

I think the legal position over ownership is tricky however. Normally, anything you buy with your own money is yours.

However, it seems that you bought this car with his money. In the absence of you repaying him, then I would say that the car is, technically and legally, his. Sorry.

Well if I loan you £10 and you buy a DVD with it, you might owe me the £10 but that doesn't mean the DVD is mine. Even more so if I give you the £10 as a gift, say a birthday present, and you go out and buy a DVD with it; I can't then decide the DVD is actually mine because you purchased it with the money I gifted you.

BeenieCat

DFC, i do see your point, but i dispute owing him any money!

I think the fuzzy line is where he originally "loaned" me £700 for a Ford. Then at some stage declared to me that he didn't want paying back, so after £240 i stopped paying him.

Then i sold the Ford (5 months later), for £400, and bought Citroen for £300. While we were separated.

We then (4 months later) got back together, i got him as a named driver, now he's got rights to my car - according to police.

Most interesting part is that the police say this regardless of this disputed loan/gift. They're saying it's a civil matter, no matter what.

RobertoMoir

BeenieCat wrote: »

DFC, i do see your point, but i dispute owing him any money!

I think the fuzzy line is where he originally "loaned" me £700 for a Ford. Then at some stage declared to me that he didn't want paying back, so after £240 i stopped paying him.

Then i sold the Ford (5 months later), for £400, and bought Citroen for £300. While we were separated.

We then (4 months later) got back together, i got him as a named driver, now he's got rights to my car - according to police.

Most interesting part is that the police say this regardless of this disputed loan/gift. They're saying it's a civil matter, no matter what.

The fact is that you're the current owner and its been taken from you wrongly. If he wishes to dispute the ownership of the vehicle, well the question of any legal dispute over ownership IS a civil matter. But these are two separate issues.