Forum Home» Consumer Rights

bought car with outstanding finance - Page 5

New Post Advanced Search

bought car with outstanding finance

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Consumer Rights
51 replies 4.2K views
1235

Replies

  • Caz3121Caz3121 Forumite
    13.4K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    sofronia wrote: »
    i did a car valuation via AA and WeBuyAnyCar, it quotes a market value of £2200,
    there is a 12 plate with 75k miles on auto trader that is classed as "priced low" at £4,790
    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?
  • macman wrote: »
    You can't repossess a car on HP without a court order unless it is on public land, which the OP says it was not. Therefore the car has been stolen, and the police have failed in their duty by dismissing it a a 'civil matter'.

    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?
  • oddjobbpboddjobbpb Forumite
    76 posts
    @ TW1234

    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
  • DoaMDoaM Forumite
    10.8K posts
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    a.turner wrote: »
    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?

    Erm ... if they took it off the OP's drive? You're assuming they have some entitlement.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
  • DoaM wrote: »
    Erm ... if they took it off the OP's drive? You're assuming they have some entitlement.

    I'm not assuming anything, I'm going from this.
    macman wrote: »
    You can't repossess a car on HP without a court order unless it is on public land, which the OP says it was not. Therefore the car has been stolen, and the police have failed in their duty by dismissing it a a 'civil matter'.
  • wesleyadwesleyad Forumite
    675 posts
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts
    ✭✭
    a.turner wrote: »
    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.
  • edited 12 July 2019 at 8:40AM
    a.turnera.turner
    656 posts
    edited 12 July 2019 at 8:40AM
    wesleyad wrote: »
    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
  • DoaMDoaM Forumite
    10.8K posts
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    So ... I'm agreeing with macman, and you disagree with us both. Unless you're being your usual pithy self and splitting hairs, by saying they could take the car because they physically did?

    @wesleylad ... it's up to you who you believe.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
  • DoaM wrote: »
    So ... I'm agreeing with macman, and you disagree with us both. Unless you're being your usual pithy self and splitting hairs, by saying they could take the car because they physically did?

    @wesleylad ... it's up to you who you believe.

    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.
  • wesleyadwesleyad Forumite
    675 posts
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts
    ✭✭
    a.turner wrote: »
    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.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support