bought car with outstanding finance
51 replies
4.2K views
Quick links
Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support
Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support
Replies
to get under £3k there is a 2011 with 83k miles that is a cat S for £2,700
what about Parkers or Glass's Guides?
If what you say is correct then there must be some entitlement for them to repossess a car without a court order. So where have they acted dishonestly for it to be theft?
All of the following must apply, if these conditions are met, the OP will get title
They must be unaware of any outstanding finance eg they can't HPI it, discover finance and then get title
They must be a genuine private purchaser
The loan must be hire purchase - NOT a logbook loan or PCP. A few conditional sale agreements are excluded too.
They must have paid a 'reasonable market value' for the car - if they're in Auto trader with same age and miles for £5000 and they paid £3000, that it not a fair market value.
So, yes, in away we are both correct. I think there is more to this than we are being told, I have experienced this half a dozen times in my years of car trading and I've never known a finance company to repo a car like this. I've known them try to scare people into giving them the car back, but to repo off someone's drive without keys?
Nope. something not right with the story
Erm ... if they took it off the OP's drive? You're assuming they have some entitlement.
Walk the line again today
Entries of confusion
Dear diary, I'm here to stay
I'm not assuming anything, I'm going from this.
What am I missing? Doam is saying they cannot take the car off private land without a court order. They didn't have a court order. Therefore they cannot take the car.
I haven't said they could
@wesleylad ... it's up to you who you believe.
Walk the line again today
Entries of confusion
Dear diary, I'm here to stay
I'm not disagreeing that they've acted incorrectly. What I am saying is for the purpose of the theft act I'm not sure its dishonest.
At the point the car was taken was the act dishonest or incompetent.
Whether the conduct complained of was dishonest by the lay objective standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people; (the "objective test") and, if yes.
Whether the defendant must have realised that ordinary honest people would so regard his behaviour ("the subjective test").
In order to find a defendant guilty, a jury would have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the answer to!both!questions was yes.
I see what you mean now. I guess the way I would see it, is that yes, at point car was taken you cant know if they were dishonest or incompetent.
However at the point you inform them of the law and they decline to return, that then becomes dishonest. Any of sort of email exchange where the OP asks for it returned due to it being taken off private land with no court order and them saying no, would be quite damning.