car issues in bankruptcy

doublemum

oh really?!?

:O)

must go look thru the paperwork she gave me

Thank you for your help it is so appreciated!!!!!!

philnicandamy

IF you can find a receipt or proof you mum paid for the car & its been passed to you then they cant touch it...as cash used to buy came from someone else NOT your estate

Flyright

But you said your mum gave it to you which indicates it was gifted to you and if you've had full use of the car since then there's no reason that the OR won't see it as your asset.

philnicandamy

but where in the posts does the word "gifted" happen?

as you know the bankruptcy forms state do you own or have use of a vehicle, many people here had same happen & kept cars without an issue

if mum had all reciepts to prove purchase & OP's had use of the car since even IF mum hadnt driven its still not an asset..so you could argue the fact with the OR the car isnt something you paid for to start with

in the end its in the hands of the examiner/receiver

Flyright

I think you're splitting hairs a bit..the OP said the car was 'given' by her mother. This implies that the car 'passed' to the OP to be able to use fully..I assume that the OP has been paying for the upkeep of the vehicle including tax, petrol and insurance so I think it's fair to say that the OR will either consider the car effectivel belongs to the OP or require proof from the mother as to why it doesn't. I don't mean to be awkward, it just appears that up until the point that the OR has begun to query the car, the OP had declared the car as her asset.

philnicandamy

Flyright wrote: »

I think you're splitting hairs a bit..the OP said the car was 'given' by her mother. This implies that the car 'passed' to the OP to be able to use fully..I assume that the OP has been paying for the upkeep of the vehicle including tax, petrol and insurance so I think it's fair to say that the OR will either consider the car effectivel belongs to the OP or require proof from the mother as to why it doesn't. I don't mean to be awkward, it just appears that up until the point that the OR has begun to query the car, the OP had declared the car as her asset.

splitting hairs? not at all..

even if you dont own a vehicle BUT have use your still allowed to pay for upkeep etc

if as I said in a few posts back the OP can prove the vehicle has bought & paid for by her mother then I cant see it being an issue..as you know being a registered keeper isnt always meaning you own the car

i've had 4 cases recently i've dealt with and many more on here of identical circumstances to the OP & they have been able to keep vehicles no questions asked..

we'll just have to wait & see then

Flyright

Fair enough, but in every other post the OP has referred to the vehicle as 'my car'.

debtinfo

Flyright wrote: »

I think you're splitting hairs a bit..the OP said the car was 'given' by her mother. This implies that the car 'passed' to the OP to be able to use fully..I assume that the OP has been paying for the upkeep of the vehicle including tax, petrol and insurance so I think it's fair to say that the OR will either consider the car effectivel belongs to the OP or require proof from the mother as to why it doesn't. I don't mean to be awkward, it just appears that up until the point that the OR has begun to query the car, the OP had declared the car as her asset.

I like splitting hairs.

BTW before responding i would like to point out that this is a general statement of fact rather than an opinion on the OP's exact situation.

Being the registered keeper does not mean you are the owner, neither does paying the insurance, tax, petrol or repairs. There are many situations such as lease vehicle, company cars, shared cars etc where the user rather than the owner could pay for some or all of these items.

The owner is originally the person that bought the vehicle.

If that person genuinely gives the vehicle to another person without the intent of retaining any ownership of it and the new erson becomes the owner. This can be very difficult to prove either way if there is no written contract.

If the original owner merely allows the new person the sole use of the vehicle but does intend to retain ownership then the vehicle does not belong to the new owner despite what they may pay for the upkeep of the vehicle. Again this can be very difficult to prove either way if there is no written contract.

The OR needs to take an opinion on what they believe to have happened and what if challanged they can prove in court

debtinfo

Flyright wrote: »

Fair enough, but in every other post the OP has referred to the vehicle as 'my car'.

Nearly every person i have known that has had a leased, rented, HP or company car has refered to it as 'my car'.

For instance i do not often tell my brother that i will meet him at the gym and i will go in 'my on hp for the next 9 months and if i keep up the payments to the end will become legally my car' and will be there at 9

doublemum

oh blimey didn't mean to start a war

i do appreciate all the comments tho

My mum bought the car about 7 yrs ago, she has let me have it to use since june, i paid her nothing for it, but i am the registered keeper. Need to find her receipt of payment tho

i will just explain all to OR and see what happpens, but i will definately need use of a car if i find a job as it won't be local to me

thank you all!!!!