Small Claims Court - Stolen Vehicle Resolution

RMurph

We recently had a vehicle seized by the police after finding out that it was stolen. We bought the vehicle in good faith and with all the legitimate paperwork. We have been advised that we have a valid claim to take to small claims court to recover the money from the private seller that we paid for the vehicle. In a bid to avoid this process we contacted the seller and offered to split the difference of the cost of the vehicle so that we each lose half - £5k - in an attempt to be fair and reasonable and to resolve the issue quickly without going to court. We have already suffered the financial loss of the vehicle and have had to pay out for another new vehicle as my husband needs it for work. The seller has refused this and advised that he can only pay us £100 a month. This would mean that it would be over 8 years before our money was repaid without any interest, this offer isn’t really acceptable to us - we would be willing to accept instalments but would like them to be higher - but my question is if we went to small claims court would it go against us that the seller has made a repayment offer if we didn’t agree to it? Any and all advise is welcome - thanks in advance.

AdrianC

It all depends on how reasonable his repayment offer was. And that depends on his financial circumstances.

But repaying £5k at £100/mo is 50 months, just over four years - not eight.

RMurph

Thanks, the 8 years would be for the full amount we lost as he did not accept our offer to split the difference and pay half in full as we had already had to pay out an additional £12k. He is claiming that he is not working and that is all he can afford, although we are not convinced that this is the truth

castle96

Small claims court>baliff>sherriff

DoaM

Who reported the vehicle as stolen? How long did your seller own it?

Was it on finance? (In which case the finance company owned it, not your seller). If yes then you should have still been able to claim "good title" to the vehicle.

AdrianC

RMurph said:

Thanks, the 8 years would be for the full amount we lost as he did not accept our offer to split the difference and pay half in full as we had already had to pay out an additional £12k. He is claiming that he is not working and that is all he can afford, although we are not convinced that this is the truth

I think you're going to struggle to get awarded £10k when you'd already offered £5k. So this is simply about instalments.

The court will take his stated income into account in considering a payment scheme. You may think he's lying to you about his income, but the question is whether he'd be willing to lie to the court - and whether he'd get away with it.

noclaf

If you don't mind me asking, was the vehicle purchased privately or from dealer/main dealer/car supermarket etc?

452

RMurph said:

Thanks, the 8 years would be for the full amount we lost as he did not accept our offer to split the difference and pay half in full as we had already had to pay out an additional £12k. He is claiming that he is not working and that is all he can afford, although we are not convinced that this is the truth

If the seller isn't working and has no assets or means to pay you're going to get three fifths of !!!!!! all out of them. 

EdGasketTheSecond

I take it you bought a £10K car then without doing an HPI check?

I am not even sure the seller is liable for anything if they claim to not know it was stolen; I think whoever ends up owning the car when it is recovered loses but someone correct me if I'm wrong?

Aretnap

EdGasketTheSecond said:

I am not even sure the seller is liable for anything if they claim to not know it was stolen; I think whoever ends up owning the car when it is recovered loses but someone correct me if I'm wrong?

No, even in a private sale the seller must have good title, and the buyer is entitled to a refund if he doesn't. This applies whether or not the seller knew that he did not have good title.

If the seller himself bought it from a third party, he in turn would have a claim against that third party. 

But of course, if he's already spent the money, no court can force him to hand over money that he doesn't have...