next of kin rights

securityguy

"this is not about money its the moral issue of her actions"

Walk away. Unless the car's worth enough money to make a load of grief worth while, put it down to experience.

madbadrob

Copied below is my reply from the police re this situation

Rob

Much will depend on the precise circumstances as to what the carer has done. The family could report this matter to their local police via the non-emergency 101 number but on hearing all the facts the police may advise the family that they need to seek legal advice and pursue the matter as an ownership dispute via a solicitor and the civil courts.

BobQ

I can see the practical issues and that the police do not like to get involved. In a situation where the dispute is between a a married /divorcing couple clearly they see little point in getting involved since its a jointly owned marital asset when a divorce is pending.

But you have to ask, if the vehicle was a company car it would be registered in the keeper's name but the company would not consider that they did not own it just because the employee had resigned from the company.

The OP has the original receipt proving ownership. The keeper does not have proof of sale or proof of it being gifted. The OP has evidence that the police handed the car back to the carer purely on the strength of the V5C when the OP had the car key and records of the vehicle. It certainly worth a complaint.

Seems to me that the OP could take legal action - whether its worth doing is a matter for them, bearing in mind the cost of the car.

A relevant question for the police is how can a vehicle owner legitimately allow another person to use their car most of the time but protect their ownership?

Mojisola

baronsdale wrote: »

Hi yes I did have the main key the handbook recipet service history and all othrr corasponding paperwork . I had the key untill I took the car from her and she report ed it stolen and the police took the car back and gave it to her in my opinio they were wrong as we have In my eyes prove of ownership

BobQ wrote: »

I can see the practical issues and that the police do not like to get involved. In a situation where the dispute is between a a married /divorcing couple clearly they see little point in getting involved since its a jointly owned marital asset when a divorce is pending.

But you have to ask, if the vehicle was a company car it would be registered in the keeper's name but the company would not consider that they did not own it just because the employee had resigned from the company.

The OP has the original receipt proving ownership. The keeper does not have proof of sale or proof of it being gifted. The OP has evidence that the police handed the car back to the carer purely on the strength of the V5C when the OP had the car key and records of the vehicle. It certainly worth a complaint.

Seems to me that the OP could take legal action - whether its worth doing is a matter for them, bearing in mind the cost of the car.

A relevant question for the police is how can a vehicle owner legitimately allow another person to use their car most of the time but protect their ownership?

It's strange that the police did intervene and gave the car back to her.

BobQ

Mojisola wrote: »

It's strange that the police did intervene and gave the car back to her.

Strange? Maybe. Or negligent? Or wanting an easy life? Either way they have made a decision that is challengeable with evidence. But of course they may have decided that there was evidence to support their decision.

RAS

baronsdale wrote: »

Hi yes I did have the main key the handbook recipet service history and all othrr corasponding paperwork . I had the key untill I took the car from her and she report ed it stolen and the police took the car back and gave it to her in my opinio they were wrong as we have In my eyes prove of ownership

So have you made a formal complaint at the relevent police station?

madbadrob

I would say its not strange at all and nor is it negligible. The fact is no criminal act took place and the V5 holder only had to say the vehicle had been given to her. It then becomes a civil matter and not a police matter. The courts have the decision to make on who owns the vehicle and who does not.

This is now in reality a solicitor matter or let the vehicle go and learn from it

Rob

BobQ

So, how can a vehicle owner legitimately allow another person to use their car most of the time but protect their ownership?

Mojisola

madbadrob wrote: »

I would say its not strange at all and nor is it negligible. The fact is no criminal act took place and the V5 holder only had to say the vehicle had been given to her. It then becomes a civil matter and not a police matter. The courts have the decision to make on who owns the vehicle and who does not.

This is now in reality a solicitor matter or let the vehicle go and learn from it

I could understand if the police had refused to act both times. I think it's strange that they wouldn't help the owner's NOK get the car back but then did help the woman take the car back from the owners.

madbadrob

BobQ wrote: »

So, how can a vehicle owner legitimately allow another person to use their car most of the time but protect their ownership?

Dont change the name on a V5 without first having a legally binding agreement such as you get when you get a company car.

Rob