Car ownership proof dilemma

anewman

Kilty wrote: »

He bought the car and therefore will have sufficient proof of purchase.

Proof of purchase yes, but the law would see that a gift is in fact a gift and she does own the car unless she agrees to give it back. Otherwise what's the point in giving gifts any more if everyone can take their receipt to court and get it back?!

Again another point, I buy a car and after 2 years decide to sell it. When I have sold it, I still have the receipt as proof of purchase unless I kindly give this to the new owner. Because I have that receipt does not mean I any longer have title to the goods.

mikey72

Kilty wrote: »

He bought the car and therefore will have sufficient proof of purchase.

I bet you're fun selling a second hand car too.
No doubt a hpi check, and then demand to see the receipt from the seller on the V5 from when they bought it, to show they actually own it, contact the previous owner to see their receipt from when they bought it....

In reality the only usual reason a the named keeper may not be the owner is it it's on finance, then a hpi check will show, otherwise forget it, no court will take it off the registered keeper and give it to someone else.

As to proof of purchase, I have proof of purchase for a pink DS and club penguin, but I'd be hard pushed getting it back from my daughter since her last birthday.

PsiDOC

if the car was to get burnt out outside her parents house she could claim on the insurance that SHE bought to be road legal and buy a different car.
No?
Just a though. )

Psi

ilovebanksMCMLXXXI

vikingaero wrote: »

A V5C isn't proof of ownership as previously posted by others. The registered keeper may not be the legal owner.

Our V5C system isn't like the pink slips system in the US.

This is true; however in light of the story that has been presented (i.e. the vehicle is her's and was a gift) the Police would insist the vehicle be returned to the keeper listed on the V5 and then allow the arguement of ownership to continue from there.

If (for example) a bailiff wanted to take that vehicle they would contact the DVLA; the name registered with the DVLA (i.e. the name on the V5) would take precedence.

It would then be for the owner to prove their position - In this case, it would be for the father to prove he owns the car.

Whilst I do agree with you statement, if the Police became involved in this dispute and took it seriously (i.e. did not consider it a family dispute) then the vehicle would be returned to the named keeper.

mikey72

PsiDOC wrote: »

if the car was to get burnt out outside her parents house she could claim on the insurance that SHE bought to be road legal and buy a different car.
No?
Just a though. )

Psi

Thinking about that, if you believe Kilty's arguement, it won't pay out, as the person insured has no financial interest in the car, as she isn't the owner, just the registered keeper.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Seems to me like a fairly cheap way of working out that her Dad isn't worth knowing.

I'd forget about it, and move on. Let him worry about his pink car.

lordFSA

belated thanks to everyone!

Dave101t

the v5 actually says the resisted keep may not be the owner. if the family is broken to such a petty level, why not call the police and say its been stolen by him?

anewman

lordFSA wrote: »

belated thanks to everyone!

What was the outcome in the end, I am sure some other forum members are itching to know

lordFSA

anewman wrote: »

What was the outcome in the end, I am sure some other forum members are itching to know

ermmm its a really long story....suffice to say not my problem anymore...