Purchased a car, Didnt know it had Outstanding Finance

shaun_from_Africa

So what is there to lose by waiting a few more days to see if the promised letter arrives or not?

If the finance company decide that they want the car back then they will have to take legal action to reclaim legal ownership of it and to do this successfully they will either need to prove in court that the OP was aware of the outstanding finance when they paid for it or show that the original finance agreement was obtained fraudulently.

I still maintain that paying for legal advice at this time will be jumping the gun.

wealdroam

Marktheshark wrote: »

The Op has played along perfectly, is aware and told the finance company they are aware it has unpaid finance secured on it which means they can not sell it without committing fraud.

So you too are unaware of Section 27 of The Hire Purchase Act 1964?

Marktheshark

If they can trigger the 2006 fraud act section 3, it is a criminal matter and they can navigate legal action as the police will recover the vehicle.

Hence why if they feel they have a claim filing it legally and getting it right is worth paying for.

The company involved are not a charity of goodwill, they would be out of business very quickly.

If the seller declared HPI and finance clear as the OP has declared to the finance company then the outstanding finance is irrelevant, its fraud.

Marktheshark

wealdroam wrote: »

So you too are unaware of Section 27 of The Hire Purchase Act 1964?

Yes more than aware, if the criminal legislation fraud act 2006 section 3 comes in to play it's trumped.

naedanger

Marktheshark wrote: »

Yes more than aware, if the criminal legislation fraud act 2006 section 3 comes in to play it's trumped.

It what way is it trumped?

Is the person who purchased the vehicle in good faith at any risk?

shaun_from_Africa

naedanger wrote: »

Is the person who purchased the vehicle in good faith at any risk?

Only if the finance company can prove that the original finance agreement was obtained fraudulently.
If this happened then S27 of the HP act doesn't apply as there was no legal hire purchase contract in place at any time.

This was show to me by unholyangel earlier in the thread but it still doesn't mean that the finance company can simply come and take the car without going through the required legal process first.

Marktheshark

naedanger wrote: »

It what way is it trumped?

Is the person who purchase the vehicle in good faith at any risk?

Only of losing their money outright to the frustrater.
What is different here is the seller made a false declaration to sell the car Section 3 fraud act 2006) and produced a false instrument in the way of a fake HPI report (section 6 of the fraud act 2006) .

This will be a criminal investigation if the finance company decide to pursue.

Paid for legal advice is my advice, however if they have told the finance company about the fake HPI report, you may be right, it might be wasted money.

Marktheshark

It crosses from civil to criminal law where deception or false instrument is used to facilitate the sale.
If a seller simply sells the car and fails to mention it has finance then it is a civil dispute between the parties involved.

Where the fraud act is triggered by deception or false instrument then it is criminal law and no transaction or title can pass legally beyond the initial crime of fraud.

It is a difficult one this, especially if the OP has declared the false HPI report.

It could play out either way to be honest and a good solicitor to fight the corner of the OP might be worth the money.

What sounds the alarm is the refusal to relinquish the finance marker.

Until this "letter" arrives if it ever does and the wording extracted we will not know.

If they do pursue the fraud act route the first the OP will know will be the police securing and removing the evidence and proceeds, which is the car and hopefully the OP's money if they still have it, similar to when someone does not return a hire car.

naedanger

Marktheshark wrote: »

What sounds the alarm is the refusal to relinquish the finance marker.

I assumed they would do that routinely just in case the buyer was in any way connected to the seller or party to some joint fraud. So they would want some time to complete their investigations without the car being sold on meantime.

I am also surprised that s27 (2) should not protect against a seller fraudulently hiding the finance agreement since I would have thought that one of the more common reasons for the buyer to be unaware of the agreement.

That said I am not discounting your view of what might happen next.

AshTheLegend

Okay just an update,

I've since returned the questionnaire that they've sent me.

It was questions like where did you buy the car, how much for, were you unaware of finance etc

Sent that off along with the receipt, which is an AA private car sale templated receipt. A quick google will show you the receipt I had.

Anyways this was about 3 weeks ago.

I called them on Friday to get an update on my case.

They're now saying that they've received the correspondence and now want to have someone come to my house and get me to give a 'legal statement'.

Is this necessary? I don't feel comfortable giving a legal statement because obviously that'll mean it'll end up in court, and to be quite honest, I don't see why I should have to go to court.

As far as I understand, their issue with the previous owner is not my business. All I want is the damn finance marker removed. I feel as if they are longing it all out. Has anyone got any advice on how to deal with this?

I'm planning on calling trading standards on Monday as well as CAB, as I feel I have provided my evidence already and just want this over with. From what I've read of the Hire Purchase Act, they need to remove the marker now. I've briefly read online of cases where the victim as sent a letter demanded the marker to be removed and it has worked.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Ta