Car finance in ex's name but I am registered keeper..

HHarry

But if you can show a Judge that you have tried to coomunicate with your Ex in a fair and reasonable way to resolve this and that he has refused to engage, before just dumping it on his drive, that may help mitigate you actions.

AnotherJoe

Samm0202 wrote: »

ETA: "Thats good, just show him that agreement and say youre willing to give it to a judge should they need to decide on the matter.
And this is where i think you become a bit stuck because you cant show such an arrangement"

The agreement was made via text so yes, I can show this.

nice one

AnotherJoe

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Oh, but it does.
Well, no, it doesn't matter whether spadoosh finds it strange, but it might matter if a court finds it strange.
We're talking about the scenario where you hand the car back to your ex and it ends up costing him money. He feels agreived that it's cost him money and asks you to pay for it. You refuse. He takes you to court.
Now, this court will work on the balance of probabilities. If your ex's story sounds more likely than your story then the judge is likely to believe him over you. And you may then end up having to pay (at least some of) these costs.

So the fact that spadoosh thinks that your story is strange is relevant. If spadoosh thinks it is strange, the judge may think it is strange.

Its not going to cost him money since he can VT it, and since theres such a thing as mitigating your losses he couldnt claim any. And shes got proof with texts.

Anyway hes not going to take her to court for a car worth £2k when he could just VT it with letter or two and be done and thats obviously what the court would say as well so he'd lose.
Plus it would be far more hassle than VTing it.



This has got really very silly and overcomplicated for such a simple issue.


OP let us know how it and goes and when your case at the Old Bailey will be heard. Not.

spadoosh

Samm0202 wrote: »

Unfortunately, I know very little about the agreement as, initially, this was his car.

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Its not going to cost him money since he can VT it, and since theres such a thing as mitigating your losses he couldnt claim any. And shes got proof with texts.

You sure about that, because the OP isnt......?

spadoosh

AnotherJoe wrote: »

nice one

Context, anotherjoe, i alluded to this in my response.


The op said it was always that agreement that the car would be VT'd. That might be the case and there might be a txt message relating to that. I suspect though, if that agreement was had this thread wouldnt be here.

So what i think the OP will have evidence of is them asking for it to be VT'd or a text collaborating that there is an arrangement in place for the op to pay the ex for the car. Not specifically that it was always agreed that the car should be VT'd. If there is ive got no issue accepting the humility in being wrong on an assumption.

Just read properly.

JimmyTheWig

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Its not going to cost him money since he can VT it, and since theres such a thing as mitigating your losses he couldnt claim any. And shes got proof with texts.

I think the chances are that you're right. But without knowing the full story it's impossible to be certain.
What if he has gone travelling around the world for 6 months? Or if he's hospitalised? Or if they're still 2 months short of being allowed to do the VT? Or the text messages don't quite say what the OP remembers them saying? Or...

My gut feeling is that something odd has happened. It sounds like it has all been amicable until this point. And now he's not playing ball. We don't know why. (I wonder if there is a new partner on the scene who doesn't want the ex to have anything to do with the OP.)

bmthmark

If he is not responding/helping you. Simply stop the payment.
He will soon be in contact to sort it out.

Samm0202

spadoosh wrote: »

You sure about that, because the OP isnt......?

spadoosh wrote: »

Context, anotherjoe, i alluded to this in my response.


The op said it was always that agreement that the car would be VT'd. That might be the case and there might be a txt message relating to that. I suspect though, if that agreement was had this thread wouldnt be here.

Okay, so no I am not aware of the whole details of the finance agreement, given that it's not in my name. But what we do know is the monthly payments, the deposit and the length of term - from that we have been able to work out rough numbers that show that I have paid more than enough for the car to be VT'd.

Yes, I do have a text from November 2017 (as I have already answered) wherein I ask him about VT'ing the car and he confirms that he believes we are able to do so at "the end of Summer". Although I know very little about Civil Law, I know plenty about Criminal Law and believe I am correct in saying no "Judge" would require a agreement between two people previously in a relationship to state "I, "name", hereby confirm that I will accept return of vehicle "x" on "x date" and will exercise my rights to voluntary terminate". I believe the text I have from him to be enough to stand up in Court as proof that he was on board for VT back in Nov 2017.

You say that if that agreement was in place then the thread wouldn't be here, which is untrue. As I have already explained, his position was that he would VT the car. That was his position in NOVEMBER 2017. It is now September 2018 and he does not want to deal with VT. The agreement, in my eyes, stands in Court - but I'm hardly going to attempt to take him to Court to have him VT a car that doesn't belong to me.

financegeek

If he's being difficult (which it sounds like he is!) I'd suggest messaging to say that you will only offer to help with VT'ing the car by driving it to x location to hand it back as per the agreement once he's spoken to the relevant garage / finance company etc.

If he doesn't respond or is difficult, i'd forewarn him that you'll be parking the car on his drive / road etc the day prior to your next payment being due (with the V5 in the post) as you've done your best to resolve the situation and can do nothing more as the car isn't legally yours.

i don't think you can be any more fair than that, he'll need to sort it out (even if he's in denial!) so no point dragging it out while the car gives you more issues!

JimmyTheWig

I feel this thread has gone off on too many tangents, with people disagreeing over things that, while interesting, aren't necessarily relevant.
Lets establish what we all agree on...

1. The OP has no liability to the finance company, as that isn't in her name.
2. It sounds like the OP is liable to the ex for any costs for the car while their agreement stands.
3. If the OP returns the car to the ex without him having agreed this, and the ex incurs costs that he couldn't have reasonably avoided, then the ex could take the OP to court to recover those costs.

In which case, OP, if you are happy that either
(a) you can demonstrate to the court that the ex agreed to take the car back on the day you gave it back (e.g. with an old text message)
or
(b) if the ex acts reasonably he won't incur costs (i.e. the timescale is right to VT it and he is in a position to)
then there seems no reason that you can't give it back.