Car sold off without my consent

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

As of today I receved a cheque for £752 salvage value of my car. Yesterday they phoned me and said that the claim will be settled and will receive 4700-752 that I already have a cheque for-any unpaid premium . I will be left in the end with two cheques for a total of 4500-ish

- - - Updated - - -

I am seriously considering court action but I need to wait for 8 weeks to respond to my formal complaint .

What was the car's value before the pile-up? What type of car is it? How much damage was done to it, was it a write-off or not are my initially questions. How much do you think the car would be worth were it possible to repair it and get back on the road. Could it be roadworthy again or is only use for spares? The fact it was sold by auction indicates it will be roadworthy again.

[icrina53]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

The damage was minimal , at the end of day it could have been driven around without even fixing the bloody thing. Is a Lexus IS250 SE 2008, the valuation they give me will buy me the same car but 2006 reg.The reason why I wanted to retain the salvage was for me to fix it and use it abroad as I spend quite a bit of time in Europe and always have to hire a vehicle.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

Why is it illegal? if there is a clause in the T's&C's I cannot see how it is illegal, this would work quite similarly to an IP indemnity clause where for example the company will indemnify the purchaser of software however the purchaser agrees that the company shall have sole conduct of any litigious matters on any IP infringement and authority to settle the claim without the consent of the purchaser or the purchase cannot settle without the consent of the company.

So if the insurer has a clause which says they have authority to sell the vehicle and provide the owner of the vehicle with a cash equivalent of the market price of the vehicle at the time then that is perfectly acceptable and in no way illegal if the owner has accepted their terms and conditions?

In general if a car was has been damaged but the insurance company's repairer sold it without consent that could be technically illegal as in theft. 'Misappropriation of property' with the intention to permanently deprive = criminal liability for theft. Notwithstanding, a clause stating the repairer has the right to take possession of your vehicle and sell it without your consent is technically theft in some situations. For instance the damage may be uneconomically viable for the repairer but not for the car owner whose resources could put the car back on the road. However, where the car has been sold this would permanently deprive the car owner of their car and as it was misappropriated, ie sold without the owner who has legal rights (title) which includes the right to consent to any sale, gift, or other transfer of their car, it could technically be theft.

[icrina53]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

Is just a big mess at the moment. I might be in the wrong, I don't know, but I don't need a law degree to see that it does not look good.
Let's say that there is a clause that allows them to get rid of my car .
1. They have not informed me that the car will be collected/dispose of by the salvage
2. The car was collected the following morning after I received the valuation email
3. In their terms clearly states that I will be given at least three days to arrange collection of my person items, like I said the car was collected the next day
4. In their terms clearly states , the salvage will be passed onto salvage for storage purposes , they cleared the car to be sold by the salvage the next day after collection
5.The re-evaluation of the car that I ordered them to do ,was done three weeks after was sold

Do you think they have a clause that can cover all this? and make it legal?

[R0b]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

Notwithstanding, a clause stating the repairer has the right to take possession of your vehicle and sell it without your consent is technically theft in some situations.

It is not without consent if you agree to a term that gives the insurer authority to sell the vehicle on behalf of the owner so there's no technicalities, there is either consent or there isn't. If the term says the owner gives consent it is not theft. As Icrina53 has stated there is nothing in those terms to say they have authority to do so, so yes theft could be an option but against an insurance company, no point and a civil claim would be best appropriate.
[MENTION=54628]icrina53[/MENTION], you do not need to wait 8 weeks for your formal complaint, you could bring proceedings before that point if you feel that complaining would not get what you would need or is not appropriate. If you do consider legal proceedings, do not cash the cheques or that may be deemed as your acceptance of the settlement provided. Did you actually want the vehicle back or are you actually happy with the amount they have given you?

What outcome are you after for all of this? additional compensation, an apology?

[icrina53]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

Another thing, nobody asked me for any paperwork for the car , I still have all the documents/keys etc. Nobody contacted me with regards to my belongins that I had in the car , etcI still pay road tax and breakdown cover .
I will have to wait for their response ,and will take it from there.
Thank you all for your help and input , all informations have been greatly appreciated.
I will keep you informed 👍

[icrina53]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

I have no intentions to cash the cheques. I have been told by the FOC that by law they have 8 weeks to respond to a formal complaint and then depends on the response I can decide what to do.
Ideally I would like my car back , but I don't see how is that going to happen.As far as I know the buyer has not applied in DVLAto register the car , but if they do , it will be a problem as I informed DVLA of what is happening.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

Is just a big mess at the moment. I might be in the wrong, I don't know, but I don't need a law degree to see that it does not look good.
Let's say that there is a clause that allows them to get rid of my car .
1. They have not informed me that the car will be collected/dispose of by the salvage
2. The car was collected the following morning after I received the valuation email
3. In their terms clearly states that I will be given at least three days to arrange collection of my person items, like I said the car was collected the next day
4. In their terms clearly states , the salvage will be passed onto salvage for storage purposes , they cleared the car to be sold by the salvage the next day after collection
5.The re-evaluation of the car that I ordered them to do ,was done three weeks after was sold

Do you think they have a clause that can cover all this? and make it legal?

I personally think even if there were such a clause that it would not cover them. They simply sold a property belonging to another owner (ie you) without your consent. If you report it to the police they will look to see whether there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal liability against them. Your losses are still the same though - it's very unlikely you could claim against the second buyer although any remedy would be civil if one were available. So, it's very unlikely you will get your car back in any circumstances, but you may be able to claim damages for losses either in contract or in tort. In contract it's likely third party rights which permit you to sue (and be sued).

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

It is not without consent if you agree to a term that gives the insurer authority to sell the vehicle on behalf of the owner so there's no technicalities, there is either consent or there isn't. If the term says the owner gives consent it is not theft. As Icrina53 has stated there is nothing in those terms to say they have authority to do so, so yes theft could be an option but against an insurance company, no point and a civil claim would be best appropriate.
@icrina53, you do not need to wait 8 weeks for your formal complaint, you could bring proceedings before that point if you feel that complaining would not get what you would need or is not appropriate. If you do consider legal proceedings, do not cash the cheques or that may be deemed as your acceptance of the settlement provided. Did you actually want the vehicle back or are you actually happy with the amount they have given you?

What outcome are you after for all of this? additional compensation, an apology?

The onus is on the defendant to prove consent...not the OP. For matters of criminal law, consent in contract is one thing, ie signing a contract ie easily binding by signature,...but for criminal law it's rather different. A defence of consent in tort is available to the repairer but generally the defence of consent is not too strong.

[R0b]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

The onus is on the defendant to prove consent...not the OP. For matters of criminal law, consent in contract is one thing, ie signing a contract ie easily binding by signature,...but for criminal law it's rather different. A defence of consent in tort is available to the repairer but generally the defence of consent is not too strong.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while, if that were the case then you could take the bank to court for theft because they have an offset clause in the contract allowing them to deduct money from your bank account for a debt owed to them or you could bring a criminal case of theft because a contract gives consent to sell goods on your behalf. From what you say giving "consent" in a contractual agreement will not hold in a criminal court as evidence and in a civil case is not a strong defence... :rofl:

Maybe I've missed something there but anyhow I shall leave you to advise on this one as there will certainly be conflicting advice

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while, if that were the case then you could take the bank to court for theft because they have an offset clause in the contract allowing them to deduct money from your bank account for a debt owed to them or you could bring a criminal case of theft because a contract gives consent to sell goods on your behalf. From what you say giving "consent" in a contractual agreement will not hold in a criminal court as evidence and in a civil case is not a strong defence... :rofl:

Maybe I've missed something there but anyhow I shall leave you to advise on this one as there will certainly be conflicting advice

I never quite said it wouldn't hold - i just said consent in criminal law has to be more stricter as someone could well say 'they consented to letting me beat them up, or they consented to me stealing.

[icrina53]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

The bottom line is if there is a clause in their terms , that I don't know about, they can sell my vehicle.
Consent from me was never given as I never received an offer until yesterday.I only received the valuation of the car from their independent engieneer which advised me that it can be challenged, ehich I did, and that is down to the insurance to make me an offer not him.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

The bottom line is if there is a clause in their terms , that I don't know about, they can sell my vehicle.
Consent from me was never given as I never received an offer until yesterday.I only received the valuation of the car from their independent engieneer which advised me that it can be challenged, ehich I did, and that is down to the insurance to make me an offer not him.

No not quite as the rules for onerous terms would require incorporation tests (ie may not be part of the contract if the terms are too onerous, ie too harsh to be in based on contract case law), and if incorporated (ie not too bad to be viewed part of the contract), the next stage is Unfair Contract Terms Act, ie are the terms whether incorporated too unfair by the statute and or EU Regs equivalent. Contract law has long come on since a person by their signature binds their self. However your remedy is against the insurance company directly, for its onerous terms, or the repairers as a third party; as either or simply should have brought to your attention any onerous terms when you signed your contract with them.

[des8]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

Gosh.... just arrived home after visiting the sick and what a lot of comments after my post this a.m.

As Icrina's post was unclear as to whether or not she had agreed settlement I suggested either or ways of proceeding.
It is now clear that a valuation has not been agreed, therefore settlement cannot take place.

I have never come across a policy where the insurer has inserted a clause giving them the right to dispose of the vehicle before settlement.
Without actually seeing the policy wording I would guess the wording is along the lines of a vehicle being deemed uneconomical to repair becomes the insurer's property.
This would happen when the indemnity is paid.
If an agreed valuation cannot be negotiated, it would be usual for the parties to agree to appoint an independent assessor.
This would be at the insured's expense as it is the insured who has to prove his loss.
The assessor would then examine the vehicle and produce a valuation.

Obviously in this case the insurer (or one of his agents) has made a boo boo (technical term!) and disposed of the vehicle prematurely.
This makes valuing the vehicle difficult, and if agreement cannot be reached with the insurers I believe the action would be to sue for specific performance and show in court the insured's valuation is correct. (Talk of theft etc is a bit pointless IMO).
I do not think it would be wise to take this action whilst your complaint is still outstanding. It might be considered unreasonable.

Bear in mind the valuation the insures are using may be that of selling into the motor trade, whereas of course they should use retail valuations.

Regarding continuing hire of the vehicle and other uninsured losses, you still haven't advised if you are taking action against the party responsible for the accident

[icrina53]

Re: Car sold off without my consent

😀things got discussed a bit more since you've been gone.
The policy wording clearly statesthat the vehicle becames their property as soon as the claim is settled , agreement reached.
I will be waiting for their response, been advised the time frame is 8 weeks , so I am not planning in taking any action until the time's up or receive their final response on the matter .
I am thinking , if it comes to that, to take action against my insurance and not the party responsible for the accident as if I have to hire a vehicle after handing my courtesy car back it will be because of my insurance cock up not the third party.
The third party is paying for my courtesy car until the claim is settled ,but since my insurance sold my vehicle and puts me in this position because of their incompetence I believe their responsible .