bought car with outstanding finance

Options
1235

Comments

  • Caz3121
    Caz3121 Posts: 15,545 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    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?
  • a.turner
    a.turner Posts: 655 Forumite
    First Post
    Options
    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?
  • oddjobbpb
    oddjobbpb Posts: 76 Forumite
    Options
    @ 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
  • DoaM
    DoaM Posts: 11,863 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    Options
    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.
  • a.turner
    a.turner Posts: 655 Forumite
    First Post
    Options
    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'.
  • wesleyad
    wesleyad Posts: 754 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    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.
  • a.turner
    a.turner Posts: 655 Forumite
    First Post
    edited 12 July 2019 at 8:40AM
    Options
    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
  • DoaM
    DoaM Posts: 11,863 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    Options
    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.
  • a.turner
    a.turner Posts: 655 Forumite
    First Post
    Options
    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.
  • wesleyad
    wesleyad Posts: 754 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    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.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards