Ex taking me to court over a car - wants 5 x more money not car back!

[des8]

What a mess
IMO the outcome is going to depend on who comes across as most believable overall in the court room.

I think if you can show in court that his business practices are at least questionable (loans not going through the books/using mother's bank account for business/using traders policy for domestic use etc) his credibility will be damaged

[Parmesan]

It seems to me that the car was owned by the limited company as it was purchased by the company at auction.

It was then driven by OP with permission of the company.
This must have been expressly given as she was told of the need to take out insurance in her own name.
Assuming that it is still registered in the company name, and there is no other evidence, I would consider that OP would have to return the vehicle when requested.

Op was not party to the manner of financing the car's purchase, that was between the company and the exes mother and wouldn't affect ownership of vehicle.

As a side issue I wonder if the issuers of the traders policy were aware the insurance cover was being used for domestic purposes.
Trader's policies normally (I can't think of any exceptions but have been out of the business for some years) cover for additional drivers only whilst in course of business. Possibly OP was driving uninsured!

As I mentioned before, you said the car was owned by the limited company, is this because of the invoice in the company name or because it came from the auction? I thought ownership would be who bought the car?

I could quite possibly of been driving all that time without being properly insured, I wasn't aware that this was the case, I was never able to get involved with any of his affairs unless it was to his advantage of course, its a scary thought. He didn't seem to care, he always drove cars he had up for sale, if he wanted to go out for the evening, mostly of them didn't have tax. We even had to go on family holidays in cars up for sale that wern't taxed!! Everything about him was dodgy.

[des8]

As I mentioned before, you said the car was owned by the limited company, is this because of the invoice in the company name or because it came from the auction? I thought ownership would be who bought the car?

The claimant is the Company
POST !: said "his company bought the car"
" 'that i ______ director of _________ purchased a car from the auction"
Brief details of claim state; "The vehicle in question was purchased by my company XXXX for £3600"
PoC state; My company xxxxxxxx Ltd purchased xxxxxxxxxx the vehicle

That all points to the company being the owner

I could quite possibly of been driving all that time without being properly insured, I wasn't aware that this was the case, I was never able to get involved with any of his affairs unless it was to his advantage of course, its a scary thought. He didn't seem to care, he always drove cars he had up for sale, if he wanted to go out for the evening, mostly of them didn't have tax. We even had to go on family holidays in cars up for sale that wern't taxed!! Everything about him was dodgy.

Comment in red.
Regarding the insurance I am only surmising on the basis of my past experience in the insurance industry.
It is just possible that all was in order, but viewing his questionable practices he might have been cutting corners to keep the premiums down.
Really would need to see the policy wording, but from your viewpoint that is a bit academic now.

[Parmesan]

Hi
Thanks to everyone who helped me in this, I am still trying to get this done, Quick question, do I have to include all the paperwork from my defence as well? or will the judge still look at this paperwork so just include new paperwork or anything I want to make a point about? thank you so much

[R0b]

I've finally managed to read the thread and (hopefully) digest what the situation is and here are my thoughts

1. Your knowledge of the business in the sense that you knew the company owned cars were being used for personal and domestic purposes could imply that the car was always belonging to the company.

Where the money came from I think is irrelevant if the sale purchase was such that the company would be ownining the vehicle. I see people making payments on behalf of others all the time but that does not mean they were a party to the contract; there needs to be something more than that.

2. In connection with 1. above, I think the invoice is also a crucial piece of evidence to prove who the contracting parties were. Again, I don't think much weight would be attached to the home address listed, particularly these days you can specify an invoice address and another address for delivery of goods - same principle applies here.

3. The email is also important as, however much you said it was in a rage nonetheless favours your ex partner because it confirms you don't own the car and rather it is loaned to you, even if the V5 is in your own name.

Against the above background, if I were to decide this, my view would be that the company owns the car, it had granted you a licence to use the car but that licence can always be revoked, and you ex-partner did so (presumably at some point?). Your email confirming that you will give it back when you find something else is indicative of you having knwowledge that the car did not belong to you.

There would be one point of contention and that would be whether the email stating that you will return it when you have found a new one has varied the licence (through your ex-partner's silence) and so the licence continues on that basis until varied otherwise. I still think in that respect your ex-partner still had a right to terminate the licence at any point by informing you, it wasn't an indefinite licence, unless you could argue that the licence was varied and could not terminate until that condition of you finding a new car had been satisfied; I think that could be a strech.

For me, any insurance issue would not be relevant to ownership of the car, nor would I say that his business practices, whilst perhaps worthy of a court disapproving, still doesn't affect the question of ownership.

As for mitigation on your part, have you had the vehicle appraised? You could attack his claim on that basis and if you do lose, seek to reduce the amount he is claiming. What evidence has he provided that he should be getting that amount of money? The courts tend to go with market value and if you can get 3 examples from different places you could average them out and get your figure.

Just to be clear, my views (rightly or wrongly) is just that.

[Parmesan]

Thanks for your comments and views. I can see your points. My ex partners business practices left a lot to be desired. Cash was intertwined all the time between personal with business transactions, He used his mothers account which she set up for him to use solely to pay money in to look like she was giving/lending him money. There are other transactions on her statement which include a car deposit, why would this be on her personal account?

He used to make cash deposits all the time to pay for bills/mortgage etc so I know he done this but where did the cash come from? could have been our personal money which is what I am trying to get across.

This was an abusive man who I didn't question about finances. I didn't have any say with what I drove, just drove it. I was on his traders insurance and this was the car given to me. I'd also made a large contribution to the family business after the sale of my previous house so didn't expect it to be a loan.

No the car didn't go in my name straight away but after I left I contacted him (through 3rd parties) about repairing the car as It needed work. (only just found the email) He said he would repair it and give it back. This in itself is an indicator that he wasn't accusing me of stealing it.

I also wondered the mother in her witness statement is saying she purchased the car and loaned the company the money and now she wants £3611 back, but he says in his witness statement that the company can't afford to write of the debt of £3611. Both statements are conflicting and can't be true?

I do not have another car to drive as I cannot afford to buy one. I am in financial difficulty so what I really want to ask is if it is highly likely that I will owe him the money I would rather give the car back as I do not want to pay his court costs. Can I do that? Will the judge accept that? will he have to take the car back? thank you to anyone who can answer

[Parmesan]

There is no evidence on his behalf that the car is worth this much i am adding a parkers guide price for the car now and it was mentioned to add in a price it cpuld of been worth when he first mentioned the car to me. So how would i say this in my witness statement? I havent got another car to drive either as my sons car has not been run since 2015, its just sat on my drive how could i argue these points? Thank you

[ieshaitv]

I work for ITV Daytime and would love to chat to you about this. Do you have a number I can call you on? Alternatively you can

Call me: 0161 952 0779 or

E-mail me: iesha.hussain@itv.com

[Parmesan]

I work for ITV Daytime and would love to chat to you about this. Do you have a number I can call you on? Alternatively you can

Call me: 0161 952 0779 or

E-mail me: iesha.hussain@itv.com

Hi
If you private message me then I can give you the number

[Amethyst]

There is no evidence on his behalf that the car is worth this much i am adding a parkers guide price for the car now and it was mentioned to add in a price it cpuld of been worth when he first mentioned the car to me. So how would i say this in my witness statement? I havent got another car to drive either as my sons car has not been run since 2015, its just sat on my drive how could i argue these points? Thank you

How's things going with the case ?

[Parmesan]

How's things going with the case ?

Hi Amethyst

Thank you for asking, I was going to post on here to let everyone know who was interested.

Basically I was quite pleasantly surprised. The car was actually given to me by my ex partner (of 20 years) to drive the children around in. I left in 2015 with the car and the first email suggesting that my ex partner wanted to be paid for the car came some 20 months after (in the middle of a court case for the house we owned together)

I went to court last week. The ownership of the vehicle could not be proven so it couldn't proceed any further.

The other party had made a claim, first claim being that the car belonged to him/his business, he was then asked by the court, WHO was actually bringing the claim to court, he then changed the claim to his company but submitted a witness statement from his mother saying that she actually purchased the car and had given it to him on a sale or return basis. This is true but I knew that the mother had opened an account for his sole use to divert income.

The judge firstly needed to establish ownership of the car but the invoice produced to prove purchase from the auction didn't have the full company name on (inc LTD). he had a solicitor with him (expecting that he would win and that I would have to pay solicitor costs) who then said that a third party had purchased the car, the witness statement from his mother said that she purchased the car that was given to him on a sale and return so you could say that it was her car, the judge did mention that this was written nearly 4 years after the event. The mother wasn't in court to give evidence to say otherwise so the judge said that anyone could have written the statement. Evidence was then given from the accountant to say that the car was in the books, but the judge questioned, how does your accountant know you purchased the car, was he there? No further evidence could be provided, the case was discontinued, costs not given....It was sadly .not dismissed as I had hoped so I'm just waiting to get another claim with the amended documents, will let you know! I'm sure my ex partner will not stop.

Thank you for all your help with this. I think the judge could see that 4 different statements had been produced by him, all with a slightly different variation of events and I think we were all confused in the end. He was also very devious and produced new evidence in court which hadn't been seen by anyone which didn't go down too well.

He had written to court twice as I was a little late in producing my witness statement and had asked that this wasn't allowed....then a week before court produced another statement to reply to my statement, again very underhand considering he had been asking for mine to be disallowed.

[Amethyst]

His case has so many holes in the Judge should have just dismissed it - he's had chances before the hearing to get his house in order - think the judge must be feeling extra generous ...

Your ex doesn't sound like he's one to just give up so it will be interesting to see what he tries to come back with in his amendments.

Well done for getting through the hearing and keeping on with standing up to him. Please keep us updated what happens with it xxx

[Parmesan]

His case has so many holes in the Judge should have just dismissed it - he's had chances before the hearing to get his house in order - think the judge must be feeling extra generous ...

Your ex doesn't sound like he's one to just give up so it will be interesting to see what he tries to come back with in his amendments.

Well done for getting through the hearing and keeping on with standing up to him. Please keep us updated what happens with it xxx

thank you, will keep you updated.

Next Court Case is on Friday....this is for the jointly owned property.