Car buyer has renaged on the deal

Chippy_Minton_2

I think you'll find that the police will inform you that this is a civil dispute. Your son entered into a verbal contract with the man, took is £400 and allowed him to drive the vehilce away.

Look at his possible defence to theft, he left a £400 deposit for a van agrred to be worth £900. Having had the van looked at by a garage (ok that should have been done before money was agreed) it now needs £400 worth of work taking it to £800.

Having the work done to someones vehicle isn't criminal, it's stupid. This man has sunk (according to him) £800 into a vehicle worth £900.

Given those facts, what has he done that is dishonest? CPS would want a realistic prospect of a sucessful prosecution before taking that matter to court. Your son has the V5 filled out in this mans name so at some point he was happy to let him keep the vehicle.

Others had said theft, it's not straight foward so welcome to the good old British legal system and be prepared for a fight.

macawslave

Thank you for all your observations and advice.
No we didnt give a receipt.

I have now taken advice from the police and, as Chippy Minton, says it is a civil matter.

I'll talk it over with my son when he comes home from work and decide on what to do. I do know he must send the log book off straight away.

Quentin

If you send off the log book with the guilty party down as the new keeper you are virtually confirming the transfer of ownership. That will make it much harder for you to dispute legal ownership.

At the moment you are the owner, so why play into the buyers hands by registering a change? Letting this drag on over 4 weeks doesn't help!

mikey72

Did you give him all the keys as well?
If not I'd just drive it back on the spare set.

sebdangerfield

Was the work the guy carried out on the van discussed with you in advance? You only mentioned he wanted go to the garage to check out the work to be done, if thats the case it's categorically theft.

Another one thats caused some thought at the office but we all agree, whatever deal you made with the guy beforehand means nothing if you didn't give him authority to carry out the work. If he had the work done on your van when you'd only agreed for him to "get it checked out" regardless of what deal went on beforehand re the car left on your drive, the £400 deposit and other offences like TWOC and minor driving offences its still theft.

I'll explain,

Theft is; dishonestly obtaining property belonging to another with the intention to perminently deprive the other of it. In a stated case when the injured party handed over cash willingly to the offender, if there is a dishonesty element there then theft is still commited regardless of if the property was handed over willingly or not.

In your case the property was handed over willingly on the pre-tence that his car would remain on your drive and he would return the following day to collect the car and hand over the remaining amount of money after the car was checked out by the local garage.

He has now failed to either 1) return to give you the remainder of your money and keep the van or 2) return the van and collect his £400 from you.

The fact he hasn't done either above and has now also taken the car he left as surety, in other words taken back the thing that proved he wasn't about to take your van makes it now dishonest. He's had ample time to do any of the above and now as he hasn't done either in the timescale you agreed and has also removed the proof he was honest has given the dishonesty element.

So, he's dishonestly deprived you of your property. The fact he hasn't been back within the timescale stated means this deprivation could well be permenant. The problem lies with the mens rea, whether the offender Intended this deprivation or whether he decided to keep the van for another reason which brings us back to what was said at the time and what was agreed between you both. However, as he has had the van fixed when no permission was given to him he has treated the van as his own as he wouldn't fix a van he was giving back the next day. He has now reduced the property into his possession, the fact he also fixed it proves his intention to keep the van permanently.

If those are the facts, the offence of theft is complete. If other things were said or deals made between you and the offender then the matter is civil.

Either way, I can fully understand the Police not getting involved with such a daft situation (no offence meant).

The only other thing if theft is not complete is a technical TWOC of the vehicle if certain terms were discussed about when the vehicle would be returned but I think you mentioned earlier something like it could have been a day or a week which negates that offence.

Sorry for such a long post but wanted to explain fully.

Premier_2

Let me get this right.

Your son struck a deal to sell his van for £900. The buyer left a deposit of £400. He also left his car whilst he took the van off to be inspected (perhaps the deal was subject to the results of the inspection?). Since then, the buyer has collected his car.

This was 4 weeks ago. What is your son waiting for?