Car was stolen - police trace it down to an innocent party - Police tell me it’s a civil matter?

AndyMc.....

stator wrote: »

If he bought a car for X and then spent Y on it ( total cost W = X + Y) but it's current value, Z, is less than W. He would be faced with a choice of buying the car from it's true owner and keeping the car he has customised. Or taking an amount of money V, which is Z (current value) - X (original value). He then has to buy another car, which might not be as cheap as X, and then spend Y but he only has V and there might be a large difference. So it may be better value for money to spend X and keep the customisations that he has done for it.


Or he might think he has a good case and say 'see you in court'

So can you see him paying twice for the car?

NBLondon

AndyMc..... wrote: »

So if the title cannot pass the car is stolen.

Can’t have it both ways.

Could it be a legal technicality? That the car was not stolen but obtained fraudulently i.e the OP handed over the car and intended to pass the title but the recompense was not as agreed (because the swap car was dodgy). Same effect on the OP and the innocent purchaser but legally a different situation? (This is just a guess though...)

Mercdriver

bobbymotors wrote: »

I don't think the OP's car is stolen. He swapped it for a ringer.

Which is possibly why the police don't want to get involved.

AFAIK title to a stolen car cannot pass, innocent purchaser or otherwise

I would say that it would be the same as if the seller had been paid with forged notes - the payment was a different car which turned out to be a ringer. The person who bought the OP's car is responsible, not the person who bought the car in good faith from the person that bought the OP's with fraudulent currency.

As far as the innocent purchaser is concerned, title has passed as he paid the fraudulent bar steward. I can see why the police wold not want to be an arbitrator.

AndyMc.....

NBLondon wrote: »

Could it be a legal technicality? That the car was not stolen but obtained fraudulently i.e the OP handed over the car and intended to pass the title but the recompense was not as agreed (because the swap car was dodgy). Same effect on the OP and the innocent purchaser but legally a different situation? (This is just a guess though...)

That would be a stolen car. Don't think taken from the street with the owner elsewhere think obtained by dishonest means.

Nobbie1967

NBLondon wrote: »

Could it be a legal technicality? That the car was not stolen but obtained fraudulently i.e the OP handed over the car and intended to pass the title but the recompense was not as agreed (because the swap car was dodgy). Same effect on the OP and the innocent purchaser but legally a different situation? (This is just a guess though...)

I think you're on the right lines, a deal was agreed to exchange one vehicle for another. The vehicle the OP received was not as per contract, so they have a civil case against the other party for compensation. Meanwhile the other party has obtained good title to the car albeit fraudulently. They have sold on the good title to the innocent purchaser.

As far as I can see, the OP only has a civil case against the person that they swapped vehicles with, not against the current owner of 'their' car who has good title to it.

AndyMc.....

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

I think you're on the right lines, a deal was agreed to exchange one vehicle for another. The vehicle the OP received was not as per contract, so they have a civil case against the other party for compensation. Meanwhile the other party has obtained good title to the car albeit fraudulently. They have sold on the good title to the innocent purchaser.

As far as I can see, the OP only has a civil case against the person that they swapped vehicles with, not against the current owner of 'their' car who has good title to it.

I'm not sure that's correct.

rossmx31

Mercdriver wrote: »

If you are going down the civil route (note IANAL) surely the claim is against the person that wronged you, not the innocent purchaser? You have been left minus the car not because of the person that bought your car from the bar steward that robbed you, but because of that bar steward. Surely it should be that person you should be directing legal beagles towards?

The bar steward that stole my car is nowhere to be seen.

But from what I understand, said bar steward never legally had title of my car, so couldn’t legally sell it (and subsequantly, the innocent purchaser couldn’t legally purchase the title)

The police legal team have advised that I need to go to court to Claim my car back from its current keeper; the police will not recover it without a court order. But the police are telling me it’s a civil matter

rossmx31

Aretnap wrote: »

The purchaser may be innocent, but he is still in possession of the OP's property, and the OP is entitled to demand it back. The fact that you bought stolen property inadvertently doesn't give you the right to keep it - it remains the property of the original owner.

Admittedly if the purchaser has made significant modifications to the car the situation is complicated by the fact that only some of the car is the OP's property... so I can see why the police have chosen not to seize it and would prefer to let the civil courts sit out the mess.

Alternatively the OP can go after the bar steward who defrauded him out of his car in the first place... but given that the bar steward has presumably scarpered and may have gotten the blown the proceeds of the sale on skag already the OP's beat hope for recompense may be too try and get his car back from the purchaser. The purchaser can in turn go after whoever sold it to him... but it is fairly inevitable that someone somewhere down the line will end up out of pocket.

That’s exactly as I understand it 👍🏼👍🏼

rossmx31

SandraX wrote: »

just tried the site you used https://www.swaps.co.uk. - unresponsive.

https://www.swapz.co.uk

rossmx31

Thanks for the posts everyone. It’s certainly a tricky case! Compounded by the Police getting in a !!!!!!s muddle trying to then not wanting to recover it!

My understanding - without legal qualifications to underwrite - is that the title of my property i.e. car has never legally been obtained from me. The car was acquired through fraud / crime, therefore title does not pass.

Subsequantly, as the fraudster never obtained legal title, the fraudster cannot lawfully sell that title on... and so on and so on.

The innocent purchaser has paid someone for a vehicle who never had legal ownership of the vehicle, therefore, unfortunately for them, they’ve paid someone for an item that “seller” did not own.

... at least that’s my argument! It’s surly the most logical?! Whilst I appreciate the innocent purchaser is being left in a crappy position and hasn’t done anything wrong, how can it be right someone has something stolen from them, find out where that stolen property is, but must allow the current keeper to retain the stolen property because they weren’t they weren’t the person who stole the property?