📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Purchased a car, Moneybarn threatening to repossess due to previous owner's outstanding finance

Options
24567

Comments

  • motorguy wrote: »
    They ARE the legal owner as someone has previously taken out what sounds like a standard Hire Purchase agreement secured against the car.

    BUT, you bought it in good faith, and have the documentation to support that.

    Surely the second bold statement must mean that the first one no longer applies.
    If the OP bought in good faith and there was outstanding HP finance on the vehicle then as they acquired good title to the car, they become the legal owner and the finance company are no longer the legal owners.
  • boliston
    boliston Posts: 3,012 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Combo Breaker
    motorguy wrote: »
    Why on gods green earth would the O/P just roll over and effectively pay twice for the car? :eek:

    I was thinking if it was only a small o/s balance rather than the full value of the car
  • motorguy
    motorguy Posts: 22,611 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Surely the second bold statement must mean that the first one no longer applies.
    If the OP bought in good faith and there was outstanding HP finance on the vehicle then as they acquired good title to the car, they become the legal owner and the finance company are no longer the legal owners.

    I think that would have to be agreed with and accepted by the finance company. Its not a given at this stage.
  • motorguy wrote: »
    I think that would have to be agreed with and accepted by the finance company. Its not a given at this stage.

    That's no different to saying that a retailer has to agree with and accept a consumers rights under the Consumer rights act.
    As the Hire purchase act is statutory law, the finance company don't have to agree with it and even if they totally disagree and refuse to accept it, it doesn't matter.

    A court can say if it's the case or not it but the finance company has no say on the matter.
  • what707
    what707 Posts: 13 Forumite
    I guess the question is, are the finance company within their rights to repossess the car after we notify them of the details of our purchase of it? Or do they need to go to court first?
  • My opinion is that they would need to go to court before taking possession of the car.
    The HP act grants you legal ownership of the vehicle and if the finance company dispute this then they need to get a judge to make a ruling.

    Does your car insurance policy have any form of legal protection or a legal advice line you can call?
  • what707
    what707 Posts: 13 Forumite
    That is a good idea. I will check.

    The only other thing I wonder about is that the car was purchased in Scotland and the seller is in Scotland but we are in England and the car is now registered in England. Do all of the same rules and pertinent laws apply?
  • macman
    macman Posts: 53,129 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 26 August 2018 at 7:59PM
    The contract you made with the vendor was in Scotland, so Scottish law will have jurisdiction.
    Did not the ownership history shown on the V5C ring any alarm bells, with such quick reselling?
    No free lunch, and no free laptop ;)
  • motorguy
    motorguy Posts: 22,611 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    That's no different to saying that a retailer has to agree with and accept a consumers rights under the Consumer rights act.
    As the Hire purchase act is statutory law, the finance company don't have to agree with it and even if they totally disagree and refuse to accept it, it doesn't matter.

    A court can say if it's the case or not it but the finance company has no say on the matter.

    Whether or not the O/P has the statutory right has yet to be confirmed.

    You seem to be arguing with me about semantics here, which really isnt the issue at hand.

    You can argue on semantics all night however if the finance company dont back off upon the O/Ps response to them then it will have to be settled in court.
  • motorguy wrote: »
    Whether or not the O/P has the statutory right has yet to be confirmed.

    You seem to be arguing with me about semantics here, which really isnt the issue at hand.

    You can argue on semantics all night however if the finance company dont back off upon the O/Ps response to them then it will have to be settled in court.


    It's takes two to argue!
    Anyway, I'm not arguing, simply giving my opinion which happens to differ from your opinion and isn't that the whole idea of forums such as this?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.