Purchased a car, Didnt know it had Outstanding Finance

Agricolae

AshTheLegend wrote: »

The car is pretty mint to be honest.

When you say that the seller is in a lot of trouble, I was thinking about that. Theoretically he can have the boom thrown at him if they trace him, but realistically what will actually happen to him? Sod all most likely. Ruined credit history which renews after 6 years?

Well there is that - assuming he doesn't pay up when/if the lender finds him of course. He will get a default registered on his credit file and he'll probably be hounded by debt collectors/taken to court. If it goes to court he'll get a CCJ and if he's really unlucky he might get a charge put on his house (if he has one) or money will be taken out of his pay packet directly to pay the lender (if he has a job).

However at the moment we don't know if he's not going to pay his debt, so none of that may happen. What he's done at the moment is essentially "steal" the car, because it wasn't his to sell. If you lent me your car for £100 a month and then I sold it without telling you I doubt you'd be very pleased!

It's called "conversion" and depending on the situation it can be a civil or a criminal matter. So this rogue may be in more trouble than you think! It's a good thing you spoke to the finance company, as I've heard some stories where the first time a person finds out their new car had finance on it is when they get pulled over by the police.

Stevie_Palimo

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I will be the first to admit that I don't know everything, in fact there are without a doubt, many things that I know little or nothing about.

However, as you don't appear to know about S27 of the Hire purchase act, don't you think that it's also a possibility that the purchaser of the car you refer to was also unaware of this legislation and simply let the vehicle go without fighting for it?

And from the link provided by soolin earlier:

Can you provide anything apart from unverifiable second hand knowledge to actually back up your claim that what I am posting is "tripe"?

I made it quite clear in my post that it was a friend who had the car taken away by a finance Company and not me so I obviously did not just let it go as per you part above, This part also goes back to your accusation above of me listing unverifiable second hand knowledge.

According to Shaun none of us need ever do a HPI check ever again when purchasing a car privately, I know what I would rather do and that is ignore this carp and do things by the book so that I know I am fully covered as most of us know that where there are laws for certain things they may not always be picked up upon in the correct manner.

Further on about none of us needing a HPI check then why is that if a car is pulled for this or at the time the Police see it as stolen due to the finance Companies report do you run a risk of it being taken away and in some cases, I said some cases will people not see the cars back and this is not just the fact that they were purchased from a trade dealer, Is it because there are many cases not just my friends whereby people have had a car taken away and adding a part of legislation here that not many would know about makes no difference with a view to stop this.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Marktheshark

Depending which firm is sent to repossess the car, one tries voluntary methods first and the larger one sends someone to attach a GPS tracker and lifts it when its parked up somewhere they can get to it.

George_Michael

Marktheshark wrote: »

Depending which firm is sent to repossess the car, one tries voluntary methods first and the larger one sends someone to attach a GPS tracker and lifts it when its parked up somewhere they can get to it.

It appears to be the case that the finance company have accepted the OP as "the first innocent purchaser" under the Hire purchase act and because of this, they acknowledge the fact that they now have no claim either against the OP or against the car itself.
Provided that this is the case (and it would advisable for the OP to get this in writing if possible), there shouldn't be any more repossession attempts unless the matter is taken to court first.

wealdroam

Marktheshark wrote: »

Depending which firm is sent to repossess the car...

Why would any firm be sent to repossess the car?

steampowered

The legislation is crystal clear. Shaun provided a link earlier in the thread.

If you buy a motor vehicle in good faith and without notice of a hire-purchase agreement, you get good title. Even if the car was still subject to finance and even if the car did not belong to the seller.

I am sure some finance companies might hope people are not aware of this and try to recover the vehicle anyway. But the law is crystal clear they are not entitled to do this. If the car were to be repossessed in these circumstances that would be conversion at best or theft at worst.

The rules are different if the lender took security over the car by a bill of sale. This is a different legal mechanism to a leasing arrangement or hire-purchase. In this case the Hire-Purchase Act 1964 would not apply. So if the lender gets in touch with the Op, the Op needs to ask exactly what security the lender has over the car.

Of course doing a HPI check is a good idea to avoid getting into this kind of mess in the first place.

steampowered

Agricolae wrote: »

It's called "conversion" and depending on the situation it can be a civil or a criminal matter.

Hello - just so that you are aware, "conversion" is civil law only. The criminal law equivalent of conversion is theft.

Of course it is possible for a person to commit criminal theft and civil conversion at the same time.

shaun_from_Africa

steampowered wrote: »

The legislation is crystal clear. Shaun provided a link earlier in the thread.

If you buy a motor vehicle in good faith and without notice of a hire-purchase agreement, you get good title. Even if the car was still subject to finance and even if the car did not belong to the seller.

Except if the finance application was fraudulent (as pointed out to me by unholyangel).

steampowered

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Except if the finance application was fraudulent (as pointed out to me by unholyangel).

Unless I am missing something, I am not sure why that would make a difference?

The legislation only focusses on the purchaser - i.e. the purchaser gets good title if he buys the vehicle in good faith without notice of the finance.

unholyangel

steampowered wrote: »

Unless I am missing something, I am not sure why that would make a difference?

The legislation only focusses on the purchaser - i.e. the purchaser gets good title if he buys the vehicle in good faith without notice of the finance.

Because certain mistakes can void a contract, including one where they are mistaken as to the identity of the other party (for example when someone uses a driving licence in the name of someone else to get a car under a hire purchase agreement).

If a contract is void (rather than voidable), the law treats it as if it was never formed/valid. Meaning there was no HP agreement/conditional sale agreement for section 27 of HPA to apply.


As I said in my earlier post, that is exactly what happened in shogun v hudson. Section 27 of the HPA is not absolute - the general rule in law is the nemo dat (quod non habet) rule and section 27 of the HPA is an exception to that rule rather than a rule itself - which is why its restrictively applied and dependant on a lot of technicalities.