Disproportionate?! I Think Not!

pendulum

It's true that if Bob sold the car on his terms (e.g. when he no longer needed the car *), then he would not need to buy another.
If the car gets confiscated, and he needs a car still, he will have to buy another... but this could be for £300 and cost less than running his old one. What he has actually lost is the enjoyment of driving the expensive car for X amount of time, but that isn't a financial cost. If Bob HAD to buy another identical car as a replacement, then it would be, but he doesn't.

* Under normal circumstances, if Bob sold the car, he would be buying another one anyway.

Idiophreak

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

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.

But then you *have* the asset again, if you've replaced it. Are you and pendulum just arguing about how to agree?

I don't know how you're getting so confused by this.

You have a car worth £X. You screw up, so they confiscate it...the cost to you? £X.

Yes, if you want to replace the car, you'll have to pay another £X - so you're down £2X. But, of course, you were out £X in the first place (as you'd already spent the money on the car before you were punished).

So, in summary...the cost of the car to you? £X
The cost of your screwup? £X

Simples.

Trebor16

I thought it was quite simple. If you have a car worth £20k and it is confiscated then you are £20k out of pocket.

Freefall

Trebor16 wrote: »

I thought it was quite simple. If you have a car worth £20k and it is confiscated then you are £20k out of pocket.

Bingo!

Sometimes things aren't as simple as they seem on the surface and you have to look at the collateral effect of the event. However, in this case it really is as simple as that.

There is just a bunch of smart-a**es on this board who think they know better and try to support an absurd position with bizarre logic.

One exception I have noticed is that his actual loss may be less because it would cost him money to sell the car and he can't drive it while he is banned (time, inconvenience and maybe a dealerships markup) so his loss may be slightly loss than 23K.

Freefall

sarahg1969 wrote: »

If the car does still belong to a finance company, then it can't be kept, presumably?

Interesting point.

Should check that.

But just to be clear if it is on HP he doesn't own the vehicle, legally, until he has made his last payment.

colino

Your missing the point about convicted drunks forfeiting "their" cars. It matters not a jot even if the car doesn't belong to them, more fool someone lending a car to a drunk, ownership may be contested, but the forfeiture is linked to the conviction, not ownership or monetary loss.