Can't get car after relationship breakup. Advice?

Joe_Horner

£1.99 wrote: »

You need to cover all the elements of the offence, not just the parts that suit the arguement.

Yep:

1 Basic definition of theft.

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.



2“Dishonestly”

(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—

(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

So, she's taken a car that she knows doesn't "belong" to her in any real sense (assuming the story we have is accurate) and that any normal person on that jolly old omnibus would know they didn't have a right to take - it was applied for in his name, registered to him, and paid for by him (including future payments).

She knows that she doesn't have consent, and she knows exactly who it belongs to.

So, she can't rely on any of the reasons for "honest" taking witin the Act and we have dishonesty.

She's not returning it and making it clear that she's not going to, and has tried to have the regsitration changed to her name. That shows an intent to permanently deprive him of it.

That fits the S.1 definition of threft completely, and she's a thief regardless of whether she's married to him or not.

Joe_Horner

Herzlos wrote: »

What elements are missing?

He's probably suggest dishonesty. But her act doesn't meet any of the grounds for "honest" taking as laid out in the Theft Act unless she's also going to claim insanity (which would, in any case, require arrest and trial to establish)

TonyMMM

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

The woman claimed to have been paying towards the car so she had rights except this is nonsense - all payments came out of the blokes account.

As soon as she claims she has any rights to the car (whether true or not) then the element of dishonesty required for theft disappears and it becomes a civil matter. The police will not get involved in this.

Joe_Horner

TonyMMM wrote: »

As soon as she claims she has any rights to the car (whether true or not) then the element of dishonesty required for theft disappears and it becomes a civil matter. The police will not get involved in this.

Except, if it was that simple, if I pop into my neighbours this afternoon and collect their 50 inch plasma telly then hen the police come knocking tell them that it was mine and I'd lent it to them last week so they could watch Strictly, they'll go away because it's a civil matter of ownership now I've claimed to have an interest.

It isn't.

Joe_Horner

£1.99 wrote: »

But it belongs to the lease company. Where is her intent to permanently deprive them?

Hence my early suggestion to contact them and ask them to report it.

Herzlos

£1.99 wrote: »

But it belongs to the lease company. Where is her intent to permanently deprive them?.

Her intent appears to be for him to be stuck with the payments for a car, so she's permanently depriving him of the payments for the car.

Herzlos

The car. The agreement is between him and the finance company; and neither of them gave her ownership of the car.

stormbreaker

Mojisola wrote: »

And yet the police turned up at his house over some concert tickets? All they need to do for him is give him a crime number so he can report the car stolen to the insurance company.

In my opinion the police were wrong in doing anything about the concert tickets. There is little the police could have done if he had had the tickets to hand and refused to hand them over. This too was civil.

stormbreaker

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

To be honest, we question whether she really has sought PROPER advice, or whether this advice has come from a friend.

His pension?? REALLY??

IF she had a claim & they weren't even married then for me that's something totally wrong with the system.

The system has had to move with the times as so many people choose not to marry.

As already said, your friend needs to seek (proper!) advice of a solicitor sooner rather than later.

onomatopoeia99

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

The car is in his name, everything is in his name & he got a letter from the DVLA informing him that she was trying to change ownership of the car. Obviously she couldn't do this because nothing is in her name.

The DVLA can't change ownership, the DVLA have no record of ownership of vehicles. The V5C is not a title document. Having the V5C for a vehicle showing your name does not mean that you are the owner.

Registered keeper != owner.