Help! Garage have sold my car without my consent!

custardy

Anihilator wrote: »

Im not doubting she has a right to restitution.

I just feel this is from the garage and will be Post repair value + private possessions - Garage repair bill

and I dont think this is necessary going to be anything much above zero.

well that depends on how the courts view it
given the garage cant produce the car and they were the ones that said it needed an engine
it 'could' have required just a belt change but without the car its down to the court to decide on whats worth what

robredz

Anihilator wrote: »

Im not doubting she has a right to restitution.

I just feel this is from the garage and will be Post repair value + private possessions - Garage repair bill

and I dont think this is necessary going to be anything much above zero.

If she can prove title, with original V5 (send photocopies only to DVLA in case they lose the original). + receipts for work, original bill of sale etc the scrapyard may be persuaded to divulge the ID of the new "keeper" and she might be able to get it back via the courts. The scrapyard not the garage most likely fitted the engine it is all pointless conjecture. The garage should source a replacement that is equivalent to what she had, BUT, in running order with MOT as recompense for the b**lsup. You may be right, but also, as has been seen on other forums you like any of us could be completely wrong. I think the OP should try to be a pain in the a** to the garage and scrapyard and pressurise the DVLA not to transfer as she still has legal title to the car and, as has happenned in the past someone who has bought a motor with disputed title has lost the motor and their money. The OP may just be lucky and get it back. Then again she may have to settle with the garage. You certainly know how to put the boot in when someone is down and looking for helpful advice, even if all hope seems to be lost, we should look to help with constructive comments. to help salvage a best outcome for an OP in the circumstances, one day it may just be you asking.

Plushchris

custardy wrote: »

well that depends on how the courts view it
given the garage cant produce the car and they were the ones that said it needed an engine
it 'could' have required just a belt change but without the car its down to the court to decide on whats worth what

Good point, whats to say that the engine thats in the car now isnt just the same one thats been repaired?

In actual fact, whos to say its even been repaired? Might not have been much wrong with it in the first place?

robredz

Plushchris wrote: »

Good point, whats to say that the engine thats in the car now isnt just the same one thats been repaired?

In actual fact, whos to say its even been repaired? Might not have been much wrong with it in the first place?

If the valves haven't dropped onto the pistons, it might be repairable, with just a belt, but if there is valve or piston damage it's probably easier to replace the engine with one from a scrapper, I think the engine is shared with the Corsa, loads of them about.

thescouselander

As far as I understand these things and from what I have see re similar cases in the paper and on the internet etc ownership of the car stays with the original owner. Since the location of the car is known it could be returned to them regardless of the fact work has been done on it. How many times do you hear from people on the other end of this sort of thing who have been sold stolen cars?

If the courts give the car back to the OP it would then be down to the current keeper to recover their money from the scrap yard and in turn the scrap yard should recover their costs from the garage. Even if the current owner bought the car in good faith they wont have a leg to stand on - in any case, could someone really say the car was bought in good faith when there was no documentation with it, I doubt this would be accepted by a court.

robredz

thescouselander wrote: »

As far as I understand these things and from what I have see re similar cases in the paper and on the internet etc ownership of the car stays with the original owner. Since the location of the car is known it could be returned to them regardless of the fact work has been done on it. How many times do you hear from people on the other end of this sort of thing who have been sold stolen cars?

If the courts give the car back to the OP it would then be down to the current keeper to recover their money from the scrap yard and in turn the scrap yard should recover their costs from the garage. Even if the current owner bought the car in good faith they wont have a leg to stand on - in any case, could someone really say the car was bought in good faith when there was no documentation with it, I doubt this would be accepted by a court.

Op should tell the DVLA police are involved etc, and as she has a legitimate interest pay the £2.50 a cowboy clamper would give them for the details of who is trying to register the car, if they refuse tell them solicitors and possibly, local press etc involved DVLA could be made to look bad . Worth a shot imho.

Anihilator

So just to confirm we are now suggesting that the OP commits a crime people?

MORPH3US

Anihilator wrote: »

Without this there is no theft

Wrong, wrong, wrong....

Selling something which is not legally yours IS theft!

Jay_Tee

Anihilator wrote: »

So just to confirm we are now suggesting that the OP commits a crime people?

Perhaps you could indicate which law would be broken?

Anihilator

MORPH3US wrote: »

Wrong, wrong, wrong....

Selling something which is not legally yours IS theft!

No it isnt

Selling something which is not legally yours with the intent to profit from someone elses property knowingly is theft.

Accidentally selling a car with no intent to deprive the OP is not theft.

The theft act is very clearly. there has to be an aspect of dishonesty rather than genuine accident.

Maybe the OP could tell us the situation with the police at the moment.