Disproportionate?! I Think Not!

mark5

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

I'm sure it shouldn't be this hard.

It won't cost 23k if it's on finance. It'll be 23k + interest at the APR, so lets just say 30k for the sake of figures.
When you buy something you have the item, an asset, to show for the money. In this case it's a 23k Audi. So if the courts seize his car he'll still have to pay the finance which leaves him 30k out of pocket with no asset to show for it.

If he'd just lost his license and got a ban, he'd still have the finance to pay but would still have the car. As he can't drive the car he can sell it, lets say for £17,500.

So, he has to pay £30k finance for the car and then doesn't have the car to sell for £17,500 which leaves him £47,500 out of pocket overall. If he wasn't stupid enough to drink drive then he'd have his 23k Audi and be paying finance on it till it's paid off and still have the asset.

Basically if he paid 30k inluding finance for a car and he can sell it for 17.5k at the end then its cost him in total 12.5 k

If he paid 30k including finance for a car and it gets seized hes only lost what its cost him nothing more!

Your working it out wrong but i give up!

scheming_gypsy

yes, that'll be it... you're giving up because you realised you ballsed up.

petrolhead69

Proportianate or not it has been well publicised in scotland that drink drivers face losing their car same as smuggling or using red diesel so he knew the risks and rolled the dice anyway. !!!! him. If he can afford a 23k car he can afford a taxi home. Does anyone honestly believe that after having a smash over the limit the thing you do is carry on drinking?

scheming_gypsy

petrolhead69 wrote: »

Does anyone honestly believe that after having a smash over the limit the thing you do is carry on drinking?

It isn't too strange a concept as you're gambling.
If you're over the limit then you know you're going to get a ban, but if you go home and start drinking before being breath tested then you've got the argument that part of the alcohol was after the crash.
With the right defence you 'could' get away with it so you're gambling on that slim chance

Mark_Hewitt

The "hip flask" defence.

Drunk driver gets spotted and gets away from the police - by the time they catch up to him he's sat at the side of the road having downed a bottle of whisky, after he'd gotten out of the car - of course.

petrolhead69

That would be a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice which carries a custodial. Good choice.

mark5

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

yes, that'll be it... you're giving up because you realised you ballsed up.

No I said I give up because I realise you dont have a grasp of maths!

If someone pays a total of 30K for a car and its taken off them, then 30K is the most they can lose on it because its what they paid out in total!

If someone pays out a total of 30k for a car and can sell it on at the end of the finance for 17.5k then the car has only cost them a total of 12.5K.

Your making the mistake of adding the future potential resale value on to the total cost of the purchase price instead of deducting it from the total paid to find what it would have cost if the person had been able to sell the car on if the car had not been seized!

scheming_gypsy

no, you're missing that he's lost an asset of that cost. So to put himself back in the same position of having that car, he needs to spend that money again. I'm not adding the resale value but the 'cost to him' has increased because he doesn't have that £xx.xxx valued asset
So if you buy a house for £100,000 and then the wife kicks you out and takes the house off you. You've lost the £100,000 and the asset, if you booted her out you'd have paid £100,000 and had something to show for it,

pendulum

Bob starts with £100,000.

He buys a £30,000 car.
This leaves him with £70,000 and the car.

If he later sells the car for £15,000, he has £85,000 and no car thus he has lost £15,000 and his asset.

If he has his car confiscated, he has £70,000 and no car thus he has lost £30,000 and his asset.

I'm with mark5 - he does not lose more than he paid. Having the car confiscated works out exactly the same as selling it for nothing.

scheming_gypsy

you can't compare it to selling it for nothing.

He's lost the money and the asset, to replace the asset he has to spend the money again, so the cost to him to put him back in the same position, is more than just the initial cost of the car.
If you buy a car for £10,000 and write it off before you get chance to insure it; and then replace it with an identical car, it's cost you £20,000. It's the same principle.