My rights after Police sold stolen motorbike

peterloveland

Hi,

I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction as I'm not quite sure what my next move should be.

The basics are that I bought a motorbike from a trader (not an official dealer) in October. A month ago it was seized by the police as it was on the stolen register.

From what I've found out so far, it seems as though the police first seized it as it was uninsured. After a couple of weeks they sold it at auction to the trader I subsequently bought it from (I've seen the receipt). It was after this that it was then reported as stolen by someone (not the registered keeper apparently! ) which meant it was now on the stolen register.

It all sounds very fishy, but I'm confident I'll get my money back on the bike. However in the meantime I'd spent quite some money on it repairing the damage that had been done when it was first seized, transport costs to get the bike delivered to me, some performance upgrades and also on a full service from a main dealer.

The police say I need to claim from the owner, but I'm not so sure.

So, who do you guys think I should make a claim against to get the money back I've spent?

Thanks for your help.

halibut2209

I'd have thought it would be from whoever stole the bike. I can't see why the owner would be liable (assuming it was a genuine theft)

[Deleted User]

All the advice I've ever seen on this subject has said that your claim is against the person who sold it to you. He then claims against whoever he bought it from etc. In this case, would that end up with the trader or the auction house claiming against the police or the thief??

bris

You can claim the cost of the bike from the trader, but the repairs will be from the thief, the trader is not liable for anything you done to the bike.

halibut2209

That would be OP -> Trader -> Auction House -> Police -> Thief

Could be interesting!

arcon5

I'd have thought the trader would be liable for everything. Then reclaim from the police - if the police don't like it they can always pursue the thief. It's the risk they take if they are going to we'll other peoples property.
Although auction houses usually charge buyers indemnity fees - would have thought dealer can claim from the auction hous

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Gosh, how was midnight mass last night?

mattyprice4004

arcon5 wrote: »

I'd have thought the trader would be liable for everything. Then reclaim from the police - if the police don't like it they can always pursue the thief. It's the risk they take if they are going to we'll other peoples property.
Although auction houses usually charge buyers indemnity fees - would have thought dealer can claim from the auction hous

No, the trader isn't liable for the optional upgrades and other items.
I could buy a stolen bike and claim it was fitted with the optional Faberge a Egg upgrade and sue the trader for £100,000?
Excellent, time to look for suspicious bikes on eBay!

halibut2209

Those sentences don't correlate. I'm sure that the OP has cause of action against someone (probably the thief), but would still have to prove the losses. Simply "claiming" it wouldn't work, regardless of who is responsible

arcon5

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

No, the trader isn't liable for the optional upgrades and other items.
I could buy a stolen bike and claim it was fitted with the optional Faberge a Egg upgrade and sue the trader for £100,000?
Excellent, time to look for suspicious bikes on eBay!

Don't be ridiculous. Op will have receipts of work done so the extras aren't a get rich quick scheme, it's provable expenses.
Op should ideally be able to remove any upgrades and replace with originals where practical - if not I don't see why op can't reclaim his expenses from the dealer. It's the dealer that has supplied goods that ultimately they had no title over. No different to a retailer selling faulty goods who cannot then turn round and say 'sorry we didn't know the fault would arise so its not our fault'.

mo786uk

The title did not pass from the trader to the OP.

Therefore the trader will have to pay back the purchase price to the OP.

It is a bit more difficult for the extras. Firstly you can rule out the thief or Police to pay for the extras.

I believe udner the Torts Interfernce with Goods Act there is a section that allows you to claim for any imrpovements you have made to someone elses property - I highly doubt that applies in this long widned scenario though - but worth looking into - even if it gives you rights against the owner I doubt they will pay you.

So it seems that any liability would be with the trader. I spose it depends on how forseeable those expenses were - you may need proepr legal advice.