Bought car in cash - Car reported as stolen by police

ashy_mashy

Tilt wrote: »

And what is the point in that? The person on the V5 is not necessarily the owner.

Tilt, I am trying not to turn this into a bickering thread which I think is what Sgt Pepper is looking for by asking one line questions and giving three word answers. He is basically saying you don't have a receipt so you can't do anything, your V5 says it is not proof of ownership so you can't use that.

I am going to answer him once but then I'm just going to look for constructive feedback rather than being told things I am already aware of.

Sgt Pepper, No I don't have a receipt, I have a bank withdrawal proof. Yes the V5 says CLEARLY on the front it is not proof of ownership but the V5 proves that a transfer has taken place, approved by the previous keeper. The whole point of this thread is to ask what rights I have when I don't have a receipt and what I can do, instead you come along and state what I am already saying is the problem. If the case is Civil matter, where both me and Toyota are saying we have legal title, police need to wait until it is resolved in Civil courts. Thanks but you are not helping but simply stating things that are already obvious from the start of this thread.

Sgt_Pepper_2

What you have is evidence you took money out of the bank.

Other than your word is there any evidence as to what happened to the cash?

ashy_mashy

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

What you have is evidence you took money out of the bank.

Other than your word is there any evidence as to what happened to the cash?

I have witnesses who saw the cash being given to him.

Joe_Horner

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

I am trying to establish what your complaint is, but I'll leave you to it as you will only listen to what you want to hear.

I'd suggest that the complaint is that, if the car was stolen (by the partner or the OP) then they should be pursuing charges for that because a serious, and easily detected, crime has been committed. It would also make any subsequent civil claim against the sellers much easier.

If, on the other hand, they are satisfied that no theft took place, then they have no right whatsoever to remove the car from the OP and pass it to someone else. In fact, by doing so, they are potentially committing theft themselves by permanently depriving the OP of property that he had good title to.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I'd suggest that the complaint is that, if the car was stolen (by the partner or the OP) then they should be pursuing charges for that because a serious, and easily detected, crime has been committed. It would also make any subsequent civil claim against the sellers much easier.

If, on the other hand, they are satisfied that no theft took place, then they have no right whatsoever to remove the car from the OP and pass it to someone else. In fact, by doing so, they are potentially committing theft themselves by permanently depriving the OP of property that he had good title to.

Well the op will need to see the vehicle recovery force policy. If the have complied with it he has no complaint.

mikey72

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Well the op will need to see the vehicle recovery force policy. If the have complied with it he has no complaint.

He won't. He needs to raise a complaint, and if there is grounds for one, it will be investigated. If there isn't he'll be told there won't be an investigation. Then maybe he needs to see the policy.

Sgt_Pepper_2

mikey72 wrote: »

He won't. He needs to raise a complaint, and if there is grounds for one, it will be investigated. If there isn't he'll be told there won't be an investigation. Then maybe he needs to see the policy.

He needs to decide what he's complaining about first.

Tilt

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

What you have is evidence you took money out of the bank.

Other than your word is there any evidence as to what happened to the cash?

The V5 also shows a change of keeper which would of been part-completed by the seller. What more proof is needed? The police should at least interview the seller I would of thought. As I have said, this has deception written all over it and as Joe Horner says; easily detectable without much work from the police.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Tilt wrote: »

The V5 also shows a change of keeper which would of been part-completed by the seller. What more proof is needed? The police should at least interview the seller I would of thought. As I have said, this has deception written all over it and as Joe Horner says; easily detectable without much work from the police.

It's not detected until the suspect is charged.

If the suspect were to claim the op took the car and the V5, what evidence does he have to the contrary?

ashy_mashy

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

It's not detected until the suspect is charged.

If the suspect were to claim the op took the car and the V5, what evidence does he have to the contrary?

The V5 is in my name and address. How could I have taken the V5 and request to change it to my name and address? If I have committed fraud then why are they not investigating me?