didnt know car was on finance

mikey72

So what different on this thread, as the feeling was the car would be taken back?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/36968800#Comment_36968800

ilovebanksMCMLXXXI

vaio wrote: »

Maybe you could explain under what circumstances an innocent private purchaser "could" have the car lawfully repossessed by a finance company?

Hi


No problem:

If the owner is in Scotland it is a different matter because you have more rights but for the sake of this conversation we will assume they are located in England or Wales.

If the finance company has an interest in the vehicle (i.e. they are still owed money) they will try everything within their power to repossess the vehicle.

In this case, if a HPi was carried out PRIOR to the deal being done they will insist the purchaser knew about the outstanding finance and that will leave the path open for repossession.

If the purchaser did not carry out a HPi then the finance house can argue the purchaser did not exercise due care when purchasing the vehicle.

I deal with this several times on a monthly basis and chances are the finance house will simply pursue this via other avenues and allow the current keeper to remain an 'innocent purchaser' but I assure you that innocent purchasers could and can have vehicles repossessed using the many loopholes exist.

Vaio - I do agree with your posts but where a vehicle has outstanding finance it is not a safe bet to assume it will not be repossessed no matter how innocent you may be.

Chances are you are correct in this instance but I've witnessed very honourable and innocent people lose their cars - In those instances they are sadly the victims of crime because the person(s) who sells a vehicle with outstanding finance has broken the law.

Kindest regards

bigjl

I have been in similar situation when I ran a Garage, customer didn't pay for work done as he couldn't afford it and finance company wanted it back, we had a lien(spelling?) on the car and wouldn't give it back till our bill was satisfied.

Normally if you buy a car that is in good running condition then a finance company would just take it back, however if you have bought it as a non runner and you then make it a runner by say replacing the engine or gearbox then the parts that you have put onto the car and any labour you have paid for then gives you an "interest" in the car.

I know of one mate that was in exactly the same position a few years ago and he negotiated with the finance company directly, and offered them a sum of money to remove their interest in the car.

From my understanding the car still belongs to the finance company and always will unless you negotiate to purchase their "interest" in the car, the finance company knows that they won't win a court case in this situation which is why they are leaving a marker on the car to stop you selling it, which you can't now legally do. Now that you know about the finance secured on the car.

A lesson has been learned by the OP, always HPi a car, especially when buying on Ebay, in my experience Ebay Motors is full to the brim with dodgy !!!!!!s.

A lot of people on this forum think the best solution is to "google" things.

The finance company have acted very reasonably in my opinion, but repossesion is tricky due to the repairs carried out by the OP. The fact that these repairs have been carried out is one of the main reasons that the car hasn't simply been reclaimed.

Write a letter to the finance company and offer them £250 to purchase the legal title of the car, then negotiate from there, if they take some time to think inform them that as you are paying to store the vehicel that they may be liable for these costs.

My old boss got a 6 yr old 420 SE from a finance compnay for £3000 like this, though we had repaired the engine, every time we made an offer and they waited a few weeks to reply we just added on more storage.

The finance company are muddying the waters a bit by saying that a swap doesn't constitute a sale, as cash is only a promisary note, the car they did the swap with was worth a certain amount and so was the car they swapped for. When they changed hands that was the basis for the deal.

The only way forward is to stop mucking about talking to the ombudsman or quoting consumer law, you have the car, the finance company don't want it back as any repairs you have done don't belong to them, and you can remove anything that you have put on the car by way of repairs, making it unsaleable for the finance company. They want money, they will be pursuing the seller as he has acted illegally, but the finance company won't just write off their interest, and neither should the OP.

You must negotiate a settlement, understand hat you have been conned by the seller, not the finance company. A financial loss is inevitable for both parties, that is what comes from not doing a HPi check.

If you have the sellers details then you could presumably sue him, possibly through the small claims court for your losses.

But the only way to get title is to buy it from the finance company.

Remember that I haven't "googled" this but have actually got title from a finance company when I had a Garage, and given advice to a mate thet gained a clear title in the same situation.

vaio

vaio wrote: »

Maybe you could explain under what circumstances an innocent private purchaser "could" have the car lawfully repossessed by a finance company?

ilovebanksMCMLXXXI wrote: »

......If the finance company has an interest in the vehicle (i.e. they are still owed money) they will try everything within their power to repossess the vehicle......

yep, they will try, the question is whether they can do it

ilovebanksMCMLXXXI wrote: »

......In this case, if a HPi was carried out PRIOR to the deal being done they will insist the purchaser knew about the outstanding finance and that will leave the path open for repossession......

if the buyer knew about the finance via HPI or other means then he is not an "innocent purchaser". Similarly, if someone in the trade buys one then they are not covered either

ilovebanksMCMLXXXI wrote: »

......If the purchaser did not carry out a HPi then the finance house can argue the purchaser did not exercise due care when purchasing the vehicle......

That's been argued before and failed, there is no requirement to run any sort of check on a prospective car and failure to do so doesn't affect your "innocent purchaser" status

ilovebanksMCMLXXXI wrote: »

......I deal with this several times on a monthly basis and chances are the finance house will simply pursue this via other avenues and allow the current keeper to remain an 'innocent purchaser' but I assure you that innocent purchasers could and can have vehicles repossessed using the many loopholes exist......

The reason finance houses allow the current keeper to retain the car is not altruistic, it's because they understand the innocent buyer rules. Care to share these loopholes?

ilovebanksMCMLXXXI wrote: »

......Chances are you are correct in this instance but I've witnessed very honourable and innocent people lose their cars - In those instances they are sadly the victims of crime because the person(s) who sells a vehicle with outstanding finance has broken the law......

It looks like just about the only way a car can get repossessed is if there is collusion between buyer & seller or the buyer knew about the finance and trusted the seller to pay it off. In these cases the buyer doesn’t fall under the innocent buyer rules, the first is obviously criminal, the second might be criminal or civil.

vaio

bigjl wrote: »

I have been in similar situation when I ran a Garage, customer didn't pay for work done as he couldn't afford it and finance company wanted it back, we had a lien(spelling?) on the car and wouldn't give it back till our bill was satisfied.

Normally if you buy a car that is in good running condition then a finance company would just take it back, however if you have bought it as a non runner and you then make it a runner by say replacing the engine or gearbox then the parts that you have put onto the car and any labour you have paid for then gives you an "interest" in the car.

I know of one mate that was in exactly the same position a few years ago and he negotiated with the finance company directly, and offered them a sum of money to remove their interest in the car.

From my understanding the car still belongs to the finance company and always will unless you negotiate to purchase their "interest" in the car, the finance company knows that they won't win a court case in this situation which is why they are leaving a marker on the car to stop you selling it, which you can't now legally do. Now that you know about the finance secured on the car.

A lesson has been learned by the OP, always HPi a car, especially when buying on Ebay, in my experience Ebay Motors is full to the brim with dodgy !!!!!!s.

A lot of people on this forum think the best solution is to "google" things.

The finance company have acted very reasonably in my opinion, but repossesion is tricky due to the repairs carried out by the OP. The fact that these repairs have been carried out is one of the main reasons that the car hasn't simply been reclaimed.

Write a letter to the finance company and offer them £250 to purchase the legal title of the car, then negotiate from there, if they take some time to think inform them that as you are paying to store the vehicel that they may be liable for these costs.

My old boss got a 6 yr old 420 SE from a finance compnay for £3000 like this, though we had repaired the engine, every time we made an offer and they waited a few weeks to reply we just added on more storage.

The finance company are muddying the waters a bit by saying that a swap doesn't constitute a sale, as cash is only a promisary note, the car they did the swap with was worth a certain amount and so was the car they swapped for. When they changed hands that was the basis for the deal.

The only way forward is to stop mucking about talking to the ombudsman or quoting consumer law, you have the car, the finance company don't want it back as any repairs you have done don't belong to them, and you can remove anything that you have put on the car by way of repairs, making it unsaleable for the finance company. They want money, they will be pursuing the seller as he has acted illegally, but the finance company won't just write off their interest, and neither should the OP.

You must negotiate a settlement, understand hat you have been conned by the seller, not the finance company. A financial loss is inevitable for both parties, that is what comes from not doing a HPi check.

If you have the sellers details then you could presumably sue him, possibly through the small claims court for your losses.

But the only way to get title is to buy it from the finance company.

Remember that I haven't "googled" this but have actually got title from a finance company when I had a Garage, and given advice to a mate thet gained a clear title in the same situation.

Interesting as your experiences are they have nothing to do with the OP as in neither of the cases you relate was the buyer covered by the innocent buyer rules, firstly they hadn’t bought the cars and secondly they were trade.

Whether the car is a runner or not has nothing to do with the price of fish either.

The finance company have accepted the OP is an innocent buyer and so has good title to the car.

The only problem is that good title is sort of blighted by the HPI marker which I guess wasn’t considered by the legislators when they were doing the innocent buyer rules as HPI wasn’t around back in 1964.

My view (for what it’s worth) is the FOS (or county court judge) would regard the refusal to remover the HPI marker as unfair treatment as it does nothing to protect their interests and is contrary to the law in that it effectively places restrictions on the good title the OP has under the innocent buyer rules.

As for your suggestion that the best way forward is to “stop mucking about talking to the ombudsman or quoting consumer law” :rotfl::rotfl:

it's situation just like this that consumer law and the FOS were designed to deal with

vaio

mikey72 wrote: »

So what different on this thread, as the feeling was the car would be taken back?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/36968800#Comment_36968800

mikey72, I think that was a log book loan rather than a regulated finace agreement which is a different kettle of fish.

They are on the very edge of the law and I seem to remember a plan (by the OFT?) to ban them

One_Day_Rodney

I may have missed something in this thread but, OP what has happened to the original car you swapped in ?

Do you intend to reclaim it somehow, being as the car you received was not the vendors to sell/swap?

vaio

Why would they be able to reclaim the car?

They have good title to the Astra and the previous owner of the Astra has good title to the other car.

The only remaining issue is how to get the HPI marker removed and FOS/county court is the way to go on that

bigjl

Why would they want to be covered by the innocent buyer rules when they can simply negotiate with the legal owner, agree a price to pass on legal title and continue with their life.

Have you ever been in this situation? I have, and so have several mates, all sorted the problem out in the way I have suggested, all of them would never buy a car without doing a HPi check.

Reread my post and you will see that the story about the 420 SE was to illustrate a similar situation, albeit a lein, but the main point being the OP must be compensated for the parts he has fitted to the car.

To confirm, have you actually negotiated with a finance co in this way, as I have, and several mates have, and managed to gain full clear legal title?

Did they actuallyy give good title or just say that they weren't going to reclaim the car due the repairs that the OP has done.

The situation is different if the car is in good condition, this car was not, it was purchased as a non runner, and returned to servicable condition by the OP, that is why the finance co will not try and get the car back, all the parts that the OP has fitted still belong to them. So would have to removed before the car could be taken back by the finance co.

In my opinion I thought that the innocent buyers rules etc, where to protect the buyer when they innocently buy stolen goods or buys things in good faith that then turn out to not belong to the seller.

As in the OP's case, the car never belonged to the seller, the finance co owns it and always will until an agreement is given that satisfies the legal owner.

As my perspective and opinion has been forged over 20 years and not after a google search then I will stick with what I know to be correct, an opinion based on facts and experience, not a view gained by reading forums, but by dealing with situations such as this.



It might also be an idea to report the entire incident to the police, as it could be thought of as fraud, but the chances of an eBay chancer actually still having the car that he has obtained in this way is minimal, but they may be able to find him.

vaio

bigjl wrote: »

Why would they want to be covered by the innocent buyer rules when they can simply negotiate with the legal owner, agree a price to pass on legal title and continue with their life.

Have you ever been in this situation? I have, and so have several mates, all sorted the problem out in the way I have suggested, all of them would never buy a car without doing a HPi check.

Reread my post and you will see that the story about the 420 SE was to illustrate a similar situation, albeit a lein, but the main point being the OP must be compensated for the parts he has fitted to the car.

To confirm, have you actually negotiated with a finance co in this way, as I have, and several mates have, and managed to gain full clear legal title?

Did they actuallyy give good title or just say that they weren't going to reclaim the car due the repairs that the OP has done.

The situation is different if the car is in good condition, this car was not, it was purchased as a non runner, and returned to servicable condition by the OP, that is why the finance co will not try and get the car back, all the parts that the OP has fitted still belong to them. So would have to removed before the car could be taken back by the finance co.

In my opinion I thought that the innocent buyers rules etc, where to protect the buyer when they innocently buy stolen goods or buys things in good faith that then turn out to not belong to the seller.

As in the OP's case, the car never belonged to the seller, the finance co owns it and always will until an agreement is given that satisfies the legal owner.

As my perspective and opinion has been forged over 20 years and not after a google search then I will stick with what I know to be correct, an opinion based on facts and experience, not a view gained by reading forums, but by dealing with situations such as this.



It might also be an idea to report the entire incident to the police, as it could be thought of as fraud, but the chances of an eBay chancer actually still having the car that he has obtained in this way is minimal, but they may be able to find him.

This is getting circular, very much like your posts in the photo-card thread

The law says that innocent buyers of goods subject to a regulated finance agreement do obtain good title.

This doesn’t apply to traders, goods under lien or stolen goods, it only applies to innocent buyers of goods which are subject to a regulated finance agreement.

Once you accept this (as even the finance company has done in this case) then the OP has good title/is the legal owner and there is no need to negotiate anything to do with title with the finance company let alone give them any money (although, if you are fool enough to offer it, I’m sure they will be only too pleased to accept it)

Similarly the condition of the goods, now or when acquired has nothing to do with it. The OP has good title and can do what they like with the goods.

The OP has good title, the only problem they have is the HPI marker which the finance company are refusing to remove. My view is this is unfair treatment and needs to be referred to the FOS once the company’s own complaints procedure has been exhausted