Bought car in cash - Car reported as stolen by police

Tilt

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?

!!!!!!!!! This would be established if the police did their job and interviewed the seller! What is your problem? :undecided

vaio

as before, I think the chances of getting the cash back from the couple (even if they are convicted) is low and probably zero.

The only realistic good outcome for the OP is to convince Toyota that he is an innocent purchaser under CCA so therefore has good title and will get the car back from them.

If the police start an investigation on the basis that one or both of the selling couple have defrauded the OP or stole the car then the "innocent purchaser" argument is gone along with (almost certainly) the OP's cash.

The last thing the OP should be doing is trying to get any sort of investigation started, his argument needs to be that the car was validly purchased with the consent of the previous keeper (as evidenced by the transfer of V5, keys & car and the withdrawals on the bank statements).

If the OP bought a stolen or fraudulently obtained car then it's not a valid sale and CCA doesn't apply so the OP will be left trying to get his money back from a pair of crooks.

Joe_Horner

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?

Simple:

The old RK claims theft (either by their partner or the OP).

The police contact DVLA for the old V5 (which is kept on the car's file). It will either have the old keeper's genuine signature, or a forgery of it by their partner or the OP. It should also have either the OP's genuine signature (which he didn't put there) or a forgery by the old keeper / their partner.

So:

Genuine previous keeper's signature = no theft + attempted fraud. Charge old RK, crime detected. OP keeps the car.

Both sigs fake = theft by partner. Charge them, crime detected. Op loses car but has good evidence for civil recovery.

Genuine OP signature = theft by OP. Charge him, crime detected.


eta: since two signatures are required it would not be hard to identify forgeries of either one. The OP would have no way to know what the old RK signature looks like and the old RK / partner wont know the OPs. So any forgery will be pure guesswork on the assumption it will never be checked.

Sgt_Pepper_2

vaio wrote: »

as before, I think the chances of getting the cash back from the couple (even if they are convicted) is low and probably zero.

The only realistic good outcome for the OP is to convince Toyota that he is an innocent purchaser under CCA so therefore has good title and will get the car back from them.

If the police start an investigation on the basis that one or both of the selling couple have defrauded the OP or stole the car then the "innocent purchaser" argument is gone along with (almost certainly) the OP's cash.

The last thing the OP should be doing is trying to get any sort of investigation started, his argument needs to be that the car was validly purchased with the consent of the previous keeper (as evidenced by the transfer of V5, keys & car and the withdrawals on the bank statements).

If the OP bought a stolen or fraudulently obtained car then it's not a valid sale and CCA doesn't apply so the OP will be left trying to get his money back from a pair of crooks.

If the car was on finance is the RK allowed to sell it?

vaio

Generally not under the terms of the finance agreement, but if they do and the buyer doesn't know the car is on finance then the buyer does get good title under the "innocent purchaser" part of CCA

Innocent purchaser doesn't apply to any other sort of fraudulent or deception sale or if you buy a stolen car. In these cases the buyer doesn't get good title

Sgt_Pepper_2

vaio wrote: »

Generally not under the terms of the finance agreement, but if they do and the buyer doesn't know the car is on finance then the buyer does get good title under the "innocent purchaser" part of CCA

Trouble is the op has reported it to the police .

vaio

Yep, and the police have said there is no case to investigate.

What I'm surprised about is people advising him to try and get the police to get involved again along the lines of the OP being "sold" a stolen or fraudulently obtained car.

He needs to be arguing that, apart from the unknown about finance, he made a valid purchase and so qualifies as an innocent purchaser under CCA and so will get the car back from toyota

Sgt_Pepper_2

vaio wrote: »

Yep, and the police have said there is no case to investigate.

What I'm surprised about is people advising him to try and get the police to get involved again along the lines of the OP being "sold" a stolen or fraudulently obtained car.

He needs to be arguing that, apart from the unknown about finance, he made a valid purchase and so qualifies as an innocent purchaser under CCA and so will get the car back from toyota

So why should Toyota lose out?

vaio

because that's what the law says, it's something they sign up to when they start offering finance and presumably build into their costings along with all the other overheads.

Also, just because they have to comply with the innocent buyers rules doesn't mean they can't still chase the original finance holder for the money, all it means is they can't take (or in this case keep) cars from innocent buyers

ashy_mashy

vaio wrote: »

Yep, and the police have said there is no case to investigate.

What I'm surprised about is people advising him to try and get the police to get involved again along the lines of the OP being "sold" a stolen or fraudulently obtained car.

He needs to be arguing that, apart from the unknown about finance, he made a valid purchase and so qualifies as an innocent purchaser under CCA and so will get the car back from toyota

Thanks for this. Yes however the reason I am following it with the police is that if they are claiming it is a civil matter, they need to give the car back to me and shouldn't have taken it in the first place.