Innocent purchase of a stolen vehicle

Woody._2

houseofwon wrote: »

I spoke with the dealing officer quite briefly and again he was not forthcoming with information. Basically he confirmed the vehicle had been stolen but would not detail how and when. He told me as much about the situation as I have stated here.

Now however he is not returning my calls even though I am being told he has my messages and knows to contact me. He also is not responding my e-mails. It's very frustrating!

At the moment my focus is on getting my money back from the garage but I really should lodge a letter of my disapproval of how I'm being fobbed off by the police.

Well since they have said you will need to take them to civil court that may take some time.

aveylee

Forget about the Police your rights lay against the Dealer.
The Sale of Goods Act (sec 12(1)) implies into all consumer contracts that the seller has the ability to pass 'good title'. Effectively that the goods were theirs to sell.

In this case they failed to pass title to you (as it was stolen so the Dealers never had legal title).

This means they failed to uphold their end of the contract. You are therefore entilted to a full refund. Whether you are entitled to any resulting losses depends on whether those losses (travel costs, diesel etc.) are objectively 'foreseeable'.

IMO costs maintaining and running the car while in your ownership are not recoverable (you after all benefitted from the car before it was taken off you). Travel costs to procure the car? Not sure a Court would hold them as being foreseeable, but it will depend on the judge on the day.

houseofwon

aveylee wrote: »

Forget about the Police your rights lay against the Dealer.
The Sale of Goods Act (sec 12(1)) implies into all consumer contracts that the seller has the ability to pass 'good title'. Effectively that the goods were theirs to sell.

In this case they failed to pass title to you (as it was stolen so the Dealers never had legal title).

This means they failed to uphold their end of the contract. You are therefore entilted to a full refund. Whether you are entitled to any resulting losses depends on whether those losses (travel costs, diesel etc.) are objectively 'foreseeable'.

IMO costs maintaining and running the car while in your ownership are not recoverable (you after all benefitted from the car before it was taken off you). Travel costs to procure the car? Not sure a Court would hold them as being foreseeable, but it will depend on the judge on the day.

I've had some general legal advice from a solicitor and this seems to be the advice. Pursue the garage through the civil courts.

Thanks

scheming_gypsy

agrinnall wrote: »

I think it might have been this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3333788

aye, that be it..

scheming_gypsy

houseofwon wrote: »

At the moment my focus is on getting my money back from the garage .

if the car was reported stolen after you bought it, would the garage be liable?

2sides2everystory

Sounds like vax2002 is closer to the mark than most - something of a known scam - with plod well behind the curve as usual ? And the government siting on their hands letting Joe Public take the hit ...

Might not even have required an official duplicate V5, merely use of one of thousands of blanks that is apparently circulating out there ?

http://www.dailyfinance.co.uk/2010/02/01/11-000-cars-cloned-in-new-dvla-scam/

rev_henry

houseofwon wrote: »

Infact I did. I did my check against the vehicle registration mark and the VIN and it came back with a clean bill of health.

As I've stated several times. The vehicle was NOT reported as stolen until 4 months into my ownership. As someone has already suggested it may be some form of fraud.

I don't know what else I could have done to check its status prior to buying it. As I've also stated the police did pull me over on a couple of occasions and nothing came back on their systems.

Ah my apologies. Something very odd is going on here then...

houseofwon

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Sounds like vax2002 is closer to the mark than most - something of a known scam - with plod well behind the curve as usual ? And the government siting on their hands letting Joe Public take the hit ...

Might not even have required an official duplicate V5, merely use of one of thousands of blanks that is apparently circulating out there ?

I'm pretty certain the stolen V5's had a certain range of identifying numbers and a garage such as the one I bought from should well have been aware of this, and probably were- so I don't think it was a fake V5.

I think you're right that the original owner is somehow involved in a scam. How can the original owner be unaware that their vehicle is missing and only some 4 months later- if not more- report it to the police. It was privately owned and had no outstanding finance and you simply do not pay tens of thousands for anything- even a vehicle- and forget you own it for 4 months.

scheming_gypsy

houseofwon wrote: »

I think you're right that the original owner is somehow involved in a scam. How can the original owner be unaware that their vehicle is missing and only some 4 months later- if not more- report it to the police. It was privately owned and had no outstanding finance and you simply do not pay tens of thousands for anything- even a vehicle- and forget you own it for 4 months.

you could have a long list of legitimate reasons:
1 - in prison and their ex sold it
2 - in prison and it was nicked
3 - working away and nicked / sold
4 - was in storage and nicked

vaio

houseofwon wrote: »

I have contacted the garage. I've also written to them detailing what has happened. Proving details of the police who took the vehicle.

One of the senior managers I spoke with suggested the garage would only refund my money if I took it to a civil court. I hope I do not have to follow this route.

Court is the last resort but if they won’t play ball then that is what you’ll have to do.

As above, if you used a VISA debit card they are jointly responsible with the dealer and will be the best way to sort it out