Bought a car with outstanding finance, finance company going to repossess it

[hello405]

My partner and I bought a car in a private sale about a month ago. We found it advertised on Gumtree, took it to a trusted mechanic who looked it over and checked the MOT, and bought it using a bank transfer to Mr. T (the guy selling the car). Before anyone gives me grief about this, let me say that I now know that it was incredibly stupid to buy a car without running an HPI check on it, but we didn't know about HPI and thought that our mechanic had done all the necessary checks. We also didn't get a great deal, we bought the car squarely at market value and it didn't seem suspicious. The guy selling it brought his three kids with him to the sale and said he needed a bigger car, which made sense considering the size of his family (the car we bought is a 2008 Golf). This was a completely honest sale, on our part at least.

Last week we got a letter from the finance company saying it was their car, etc. etc and asking us to provide them details if we believed it was our car. We sent them all pertinent details a few days ago and today they wrote us back and said:

Under normal circumstances if you had bought the vehicle from our customer you could be afforded the protection of Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 and thus be treated as an innocent purchaser of the above vehicle providing the following criteria were satisfied:

1. The the person buying the vehicle must be a private purchaser .e not a motor trader and to have bought it from our customer.
2. That you must have had no notice of the Conditional Sale agreement.
3. The purchase must have been in good faith.

All three points would have to be satisfied in full in order for you to have clear title to the vehicle and thus be the owner of the vehicle using Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act.

However in this case you did not buy the vehicle from our customer but from Mr T. It would be for Mr T to show that Section 27 applies to his purchase. Mr T has not satisfied all the criteria in that he has not proved that he bought the vehicle from our customer and/or that he had the right to sell the vehicle. For this reason Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 does not apply to your claim of ownership.

Your claim of ownership of the vehicle is therefore rejected and we will be appointing agents to collect it from you.

So it appears that we were not the first innocent purchaser, and from the timeline I have constructed, it seems that the guy we bought it from was the one who bought it from the person with the finance agreement, and it looks like he may have re-sold it to us once he found out about it (I am not sure of that part, though).

So my questions are:

1. Is what the finance company says in point 1 above correct? (ie "and to have bought it from our customer") Does sec 27 of the HPA 1964 only apply to the first purchaser?
2. If Mr. T bought the car innocently, does that not mean he obtained good title to the car and sold it on to us? In which case, is us getting a letter from him showing that his purchase was in good faith enough?


Update 31 Oct: Moneybarn seized the car after ignoring our letters. We submitted a 'Letter before action' and a written statement from the person who sold us the car stating that he bought it in good faith in a private sale with no knowledge of the finance on it (per Section 27 of the Hire-Purchase Act 1964) and Moneybarn returned the car to us and removed their financial interest in the car. To anyone who finds themselves in this situation, DO NOT GIVE UP!

[Amethyst]

I think they refer to this part

27(3)Where the person to whom the disposition referred to in subsection (1) above is made (the “original purchaser”) is a trade or finance purchaser, then if the person who is the first private purchaser of the motor vehicle after that disposition (the “first private purchaser”) is a purchaser of the vehicle in good faith without notice of the relevant agreement, the disposition of the vehicle to the first private purchaser shall have effect as if the title of the creditor to the vehicle had been vested in the debtor immediately before he disposed of it to the original purchaser.

(4)Where, in a case within subsection (3) above—

(a)the disposition by which the first private purchaser becomes a purchaser of the motor vehicle in good faith without notice of the relevant agreement is itself a bailment or hiring under a hire-purchase agreement, and

(b)the person who is the creditor in relation to that agreement disposes of the vehicle to the first private purchaser, or a person claiming under him, by transferring to him the property in the vehicle in pursuance of a provision in the agreement in that behalf,

the disposition referred to in paragraph (b) above (whether or not the person to whom it is made is a purchaser in good faith without notice of the relevant agreement) shall as well as the disposition referred to in paragraph (a) above, have effect as mentioned in sub-section (3) above.

Was the Logbook in Mr T's name?

In their letter they seem to have already asked Mr T ?

Mr T has not satisfied all the criteria in that he has not proved that he bought the vehicle from our customer and/or that he had the right to sell the vehicle.

R0b @des8

[hello405]

I can't say that I fully understand that, even having read it a few times. I'm still unclear where we stand as innocent purchasers, but not the first.

I don't know for sure, but my guess is that Mr. T bought the car innocently, got a threatening email from the finance company and panicked and sold it on (without contacting them). The logbook was in Mr. T's name.

I guess what I am wondering is:

If Mr. T satisfies the terms of Sect 27 of the HPA, ie. bought it innocently in good faith in a private sale, did he have the right to sell it? ie. if he sold it after having gotten a letter from the finance company, did he still have good title because it was an innocent purchase? (and therefore was able to sell it legally to us)

I'm not sure if it's worth going after Mr. T to get a statement from him--it seems like it is worth it if he would have had the right to sell the car if he bought it innocently.

[des8]

The problem is in the words "Mr T has not satisfied all the criteria in that he has not proved that he bought the vehicle from our customer"
How did Mr T obtain the vehicle?

Did you check his address on the registration document?
Did you go to his private address to collect the car?

He brought the car to the place of sale..... sounds like you might have "purchased" a stolen vehicle.
You paid by bank transfer..

I think you might have learnt a painful lesson

you could try reporting it to the police and hope they can trace the guy so you might recoup some of your cash, but regretfully that is unlikely.

[hello405]

The problem is in the words "Mr T has not satisfied all the criteria in that he has not proved that he bought the vehicle from our customer"
How did Mr T obtain the vehicle?

Did you check his address on the registration document?
Did you go to his private address to collect the car?

He brought the car to the place of sale..... sounds like you might have "purchased" a stolen vehicle.
You paid by bank transfer..

I think you might have learnt a painful lesson

you could try reporting it to the police and hope they can trace the guy so you might recoup some of your cash, but regretfully that is unlikely.

Is this a legal opinion or just your personal opinion? I get the feeling it's the latter.

We've spoken to Mr T and he purchased the car in a private sale with no knowledge of any outstanding finance. He said he's happy to provide us with all documentation of that sale. (And yes, his name was on registration and we have his address). So it sounds like Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 still stands, as Mr T obtained good title to the car when he purchased it innocently.

[des8]

If by "Legal Opinion " you mean "a written statement by a judicial officer, legal expert or a court as to the illegibility or legibility of a condition, intendant or action" my comments were obviously a personal opinion based on the little information that was available, hence the caveat "sounds like".

pleased to see you did not fall for a scam (there's a lot about) and it does appear that you have the protection required.
(although that will depend on the quality of the evidence from Mr T)

I would suggest you find somewhere some distance away from your home (rent a lock up?) to keep the vehicle out of sight whilst the finance company is trying to repossess.

[wales01man]

Mr t may well know it was on HP after he brought it after all advice when buying a car is go to sellers address not have them come to you. Now Mr t has the money if he was genuine I would expect him to refund money and take back the car.

[hello405]

Mr t may well know it was on HP after he brought it after all advice when buying a car is go to sellers address not have them come to you. Now Mr t has the money if he was genuine I would expect him to refund money and take back the car.

My partner asked him to meet at a mechanic of our choice to have the car inspected, which is the reason we did not meet at his house. We have his address, though.

As far as I can tell, whether or not Mr T knew it had outstanding finance when he sold it to us is irrelevant to whether or not he gained good title to the car when he bought it. Although he may have known about the finance when he sold it, I believe him when he said he didn't know about it when he bought it, and as such he would have sold us clear title to the car. The fact that he's willing to give us all documentation about his sale suggests he's telling the truth.

On the other hand, the finance company has provided no documentation showing that they have any claim to the car.

[R0b]

Hello, bit late to the topic as I've been away on holiday so have been catching up. I have to say, its an interesting topic and not something that I have come across on a regular basis. Just so that you are fully understand where the finance company is coming from, it might be best to set out some background. There is a general rule in law called the 'Nemo Dat' rule which at its basic, means that a person who does not have title to the goods, cannot subsequently pass that title on. This is also set out in Section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979:

"... where goods are sold by a person who is not their owner, and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller's authority to sell."

So the starting point (particularly from the finance company's view) is that you do not have title to the car because permission to sell the vehicle was not given by the finance company. There are, however, certain exceptions to the rule where a bona fide purchaser acquires a vehicle in good faith without knowing that it is on finance. As already established, that is set out in Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964.

This Section distinguishes between a private purchaser and a trade or finance purchaser and to be clear, a trade or finance purchaser never acquires title, it is only the private purchaser. That said, there are three circumstances set out under Section 27 which enables a private purchaser to acquire title. These are 27(2), 27(3) and 27(4).

There is nothing to suggest that Mr T is a trade or finance purchaser so the relevant provision is likely to fall under 27(2). For clarity, I've quoted both 27(1) and 27(2) for ease:

"(1)This section applies where a motor vehicle has been bailed or (in Scotland) hired under a hire-purchase agreement, or has been agreed to be sold under a conditional sale agreement, and, before the property in the vehicle has become vested in the debtor, he disposes of the vehicle to another person.

(2)Where the disposition referred to in subsection (1) above is to a private purchaser, and he is a purchaser of the motor vehicle in good faith without notice of the hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement (the “relevant agreement”) that disposition shall have effect as if the creditor’s title to the vehicle has been vested in the debtor immediately before that disposition."

So as it stands, your defence is that Mr T sold the vehicle to you in good faith, which in turn was subsequently purchased by you, which in my opinion is the correct stance to take. I also believe finance company's reference to a motor trader is wrong as title could still pass under 27(3) but I won't get into that unless we have to.

In addition, Section 28 of the Hire Purchase Act sets out some (rebuttable) presumptions in relation to the purchase of the car under a hire purchase agreement. These presumptions were incorporated because it is likely to be difficult for the purchaser to prove the chain of custody and transactions hence they are presumptions that can be rebutted by the finance company. I've quoted the relevant provisions of Section 28 below:

"(1)Where in any proceedings (whether criminal or civil) relating to a motor vehicle it is proved—

(a) that the vehicle was bailed or (in Scotland) hired under a hire-purchase agreement, or was agreed to be sold under a conditional sale agreement and
(b) that a person (whether a party to the proceedings or not) became a private purchaser of the vehicle in good faith without notice of the hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement (the “relevent agreement”),

this section shall have effect for the purposes of the operation of section 27 of this Act in relation to those proceedings.

(2) It shall be presumed for those purposes, unless the contrary is proved, that the disposition of the vehicle to the person referred to in subsection (1)(b) above (the “relevant purchaser”) was made by the debtor.

(3) If it is proved that that disposition was not made by the debtor, then it shall be presumed for those purposes, unless the contrary is proved:-

(a) that the debtor disposed of the vehicle to a private purchaser purchasing in good faith without notice of the relevant agreement, and
(b) that the relevant purchaser is or was a person claiming under the person to whom the debtor so disposed of the vehicle."

Therefore, assuming that you are able to prove 28(1)(a) and (b), then the presumption under 28(2) applies or if the finance company is somehow able to prove that the sale was not made by the debtor, then you can rely on the presumption under 28(3), all of which basically says that the sale was made in good faith to a private purchaser.

So to summarise, it is up to the finance company to prove (not the other way around) that the exceptions and presumptions under Section 27 and 28 of the Act do not apply.

If it were me, I would be standing my ground and writing to them that you are afforded the protection under the Hire Purchase Act and if they believe otherwise, then they need to show some evidence to that effect. I would also be putting them on notice that any attempt to repossess the vehicle will be considered a wrongful interference of goods (trespass to goods and/or conversion) and you reserve the right to commence legal proceedings for such unlawful interference.

[hello405]

Thank you, R0b, this is so helpful! If I am understanding correctly, Section 28 means that even if the person who sold it to us is not the original debtor, we still have a claim?

We've spoken to Mr. T and he has provided us with the name of the person who sold it to him and the details of the sale, but I do not know if that person, Mr S, is the debtor to the finance company or if it was a previous owner. So am I better off giving the finance company the details of Mr T's purchase of the car, or am I better off just telling them to prove we don't have title?

[R0b]

Good question. I couldn't say for certain but having read Section 27, I would say that your claim to title of the car would still be a reasonably valid one. As I read Section 27(2), it confirms that the creditor's title is passed to the debtor when disposing of the car as if it were owned by the debtor himself/herself. That title then passes to the private purchaser who meets the relevant criteria. There is nothing to suggest that the private purchaser (Mr T) is not entitled to then dispose of the car himself and as far as the rules on sales contracts go, it shouldn't be a problem as the title is then vested in Mr T as if the car was his own.

On the other hand, have a read of Section 27(3) below, particularly where I have underlined some words:-

(3) Where the person to whom the disposition referred to in subsection (1) above is made (the “original purchaser”) is a trade or finance purchaser, then if the person who is the first private purchaser of the motor vehicle after that disposition (the “first private purchaser”) is a purchaser of the vehicle in good faith without notice of the relevant agreement, the disposition of the vehicle to the first private purchaser shall have effect as if the title of the creditor to the vehicle had been vested in the debtor immediately before he disposed of it to the original purchaser.

As highlighted above, if the chain of custody involves a trade or finance purchaser, it would appear that only the first private purchaser has the right to rely on this exception as a defence to claiming title. I would probably go as far as saying that the car could be passed from one trade or finance purchaser to another but as soon as the first private purchaser concludes the sale by meeting the good faith and without notice criteria, any subsequent purchaser is not able to rely on Section 27.

On comparing 27(3) with 27(2), no reference is made to the first private purchaser and so logically, subsequent private purchasers who meet the good faith and without notice criteria, are still able to rely on 27(2). The thing is, Parliament explicitly incorporated 'first private purchaser' into Section 27(3) so if the same ought to have applied to Section 27(2) then they would have made that clear as they did in 27(3).

Again, this is just my view of things and a logical way of thinking about it, but its probably a moot point as I don't think there are any court cases on this specific point, or at least I've not come across any from having a quick look.

Hope that makes sense.

[hello405]

My read of it is that Section 27 applies to Mr T (assuming he bought it from the debtor) and he gained good title to the vehicle. In which case, Section 27 doesn't even pertain to me, because we bought the car from Mr T, who had good title and sold it on to us.

Section 28 has me a bit muddled, though. Specifically 28(3)--

(3) If it is proved that that disposition was not made by the debtor, then it shall be presumed for those purposes, unless the contrary is proved:-
(a) that the debtor disposed of the vehicle to a private purchaser purchasing in good faith without notice of the relevant agreement, and
(b) that the relevant purchaser is or was a person claiming under the person to whom the debtor so disposed of the vehicle."

I am not sure if I understand what it means by "person claiming under the person to who the debtor so disposed of the vehicle". Would that be someone like myself who would be the second or third in the chain after the vehicle was sold by the debtor?

[R0b]

My read of it is that Section 27 applies to Mr T (assuming he bought it from the debtor) and he gained good title to the vehicle. In which case, Section 27 doesn't even pertain to me, because we bought the car from Mr T, who had good title and sold it on to us.

Of course and that is why mentioned in post #11 that as far as sales contracts go, if someone has title to goods then they are free to dispose of it any way they wish. A fair point you make and in that aspect, the HP Act shouldn't apply to you, but I don't think it is that simple.

Even if Mr T purchased the car in good faith and without notice of the finance on the car, but you then found out prior to it being sold to you that the car did in fact have finance attached to it, I would think, that a court would be inclined to impose the nemo dat rule and refer to Section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act. You can't have good title to something when you have knowledge that it is owned by someone else other than the person selling it. Playing devil's advocate, I would also think a court might come up with some other reason why you might not have good title such as the finance company having an equitable interest and you holding the car on trust.

All in all, it's not as simple as you might think and it would probably require a good look at the both legislation of the HP Act and the SOGA together rather than independently. Remember, Section 27 of the HP Act is the exception rather than the rule.

I am not sure if I understand what it means by "person claiming under the person to who the debtor so disposed of the vehicle". Would that be someone like myself who would be the second or third in the chain after the vehicle was sold by the debtor?

The presumptions under Section 28 are what I would describe as tiered hurdles. If the finance company shows that the debtor did not sell the car to Mr T rather it was someone else, then it is further presumed (under Section 28(3) of the HP Act) that the debtor disposed of the car to that person who was acting in good faith and without notice of the finance attached to the car, to give effect of retaining good title through the chain of transactions.

Putting it in simple terms, think of Section 28(3) as a two part test:-

Can the finance company prove that:-

(a) the seller who sold the car to Mr T was not the debtor; and
(b) the seller:-
(i) was not a private purchaser; and
(ii) did not purchase the car in good faith without notice of the finance attached to it.

The word and would imply that both (i) and (ii) above have to be satisfied to meet (b). As a quick example from the top of my head, where the debtor disposes of the car to his friend (who may be a private purchaser but knows that the car was financed) which is then sold on to Mr T none the wiser, and if the finance company can prove this, there will be no defence to the finance company's claim to the car's title.

I think the above example makes sense?

We've spoken to Mr. T and he has provided us with the name of the person who sold it to him and the details of the sale, but I do not know if that person, Mr S, is the debtor to the finance company or if it was a previous owner. So am I better off giving the finance company the details of Mr T's purchase of the car, or am I better off just telling them to prove we don't have title?

Just to comment on the above, I would suggest that you leave it up to the finance company to prove all of this and keep any records or evidence with the rest of your file of papers. It's not your job to prove title to the car, its the finance company, so why make their life easier by giving them all of the information. In fact it would be reasonable of you to raise the question that if Mr T was not the debtor, then they should supply the name of the debtor to which the car was hired out to. I suspect they would quote data protection but you could argue that under the Data Protection Act 2018 / GDPR, it is lawful to disclose personal data where it is anticipated or the potential for legal proceedings to commence.

[hello405]

Of course and that is why mentioned in post #11 that as far as sales contracts go, if someone has title to goods then they are free to dispose of it any way they wish. A fair point you make and in that aspect, the HP Act shouldn't apply to you, but I don't think it is that simple.

Even if Mr T purchased the car in good faith and without notice of the finance on the car, but you then found out prior to it being sold to you that the car did in fact have finance attached to it, I would think, that a court would be inclined to impose the nemo dat rule and refer to Section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act. You can't have good title to something when you have knowledge that it is owned by someone else other than the person selling it. Playing devil's advocate, I would also think a court might come up with some other reason why you might not have good title such as the finance company having an equitable interest and you holding the car on trust.

All in all, it's not as simple as you might think and it would probably require a good look at the both legislation of the HP Act and the SOGA together rather than independently. Remember, Section 27 of the HP Act is the exception rather than the rule.

This isn't exactly what I meant, I meant if Mr T purchased the car in good faith without notice of finance, but then *he* found out about the financing before selling to us (who also bought it in good faith without notice of the financing). The question is whether his claim of good title is changed at all by getting notice of financing after his purchase of the car.

From a layperson's perspective, I would assume that based on Section 27 an innocent private purchaser who meets all of the criteria would gain good title to the car immediately upon purchase, even if he then needs to prove it, possibly in court, to get that title recognized. But what you are maybe suggesting is that whether or not he has good title to the car at the time of his purchase of it is still very nebulous, and thus disposing of the car after receiving notice of the financing might put the title in jeopardy. Seems pretty vague. Because of course if he did purchase the title, getting a letter from the finance company saying they own it should have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he can sell it.

For what it's worth, Mr T says he did not know of the financing agreement when he sold the car to us, but I have my suspicions that might not be true, although no actual evidence to suggest that he knew. The finance company will probably say they sent him a letter a few days before he sold it, though, if I had to guess. So whether or not his sale of the car impacts his claim to good title may end up being very important to our claim.

The presumptions under Section 28 are what I would describe as tiered hurdles. If the finance company shows that the debtor did not sell the car to Mr T rather it was someone else, then it is further presumed (under Section 28(3) of the HP Act) that the debtor disposed of the car to that person who was acting in good faith and without notice of the finance attached to the car, to give effect of retaining good title through the chain of transactions.

Putting it in simple terms, think of Section 28(3) as a two part test:-

Can the finance company prove that:-

(a) the seller who sold the car to Mr T was not the debtor; and
(b) the seller:-
(i) was not a private purchaser; and
(ii) did not purchase the car in good faith without notice of the finance attached to it.

The word and would imply that both (i) and (ii) above have to be satisfied to meet (b). As a quick example from the top of my head, where the debtor disposes of the car to his friend (who may be a private purchaser but knows that the car was financed) which is then sold on to Mr T none the wiser, and if the finance company can prove this, there will be no defence to the finance company's claim to the car's title.

I think the above example makes sense?

Thank you for explaining. This does make sense. So even if we did not buy it from the debtor, it is up to the finance company to show that someone in the chain of sales did not meet the terms of Section 27 (ie they must be innocent and private). If someone in the chain is proven to not be innocent, we will probably lose our claim. But, it is not for us to prove the status of each person in the chain of sales as innocent, it is assumed until the finance company proves otherwise. (That sound about right?)

Just to comment on the above, I would suggest that you leave it up to the finance company to prove all of this and keep any records or evidence with the rest of your file of papers. It's not your job to prove title to the car, its the finance company, so why make their life easier by giving them all of the information. In fact it would be reasonable of you to raise the question that if Mr T was not the debtor, then they should supply the name of the debtor to which the car was hired out to. I suspect they would quote data protection but you could argue that under the Data Protection Act 2018 / GDPR, it is lawful to disclose personal data where it is anticipated or the potential for legal proceedings to commence.

Thank you. We will send another letter today reiterating our claim of ownership, requesting information about the debtor (mentioning the GDPR exception) and saying if they attempt to repossess the car we will commence legal proceedings.

On that last note, if they claim ownership are they allowed to just break in to the car and take it? Or will they try and get us to give them the keys? (Ie should we be worried that if we park the car at our house it will be missing one morning?) Not sure if real life is like the Repo Man movie or not.

[R0b]

This isn't exactly what I meant, I meant if Mr T purchased the car in good faith without notice of finance, but then *he* found out about the financing before selling to us (who also bought it in good faith without notice of the financing). The question is whether his claim of good title is changed at all by getting notice of financing after his purchase of the car.

I don't think that would alter the position of good title. Section 27 generally, refers to the disposition of a car that is under a hire purchase or conditional sale agreement and as I read it, the criteria to be satisfied is at the time of the disposition, the purchase needs to purchase in good faith and without notice of the finance agreement. If the purchaser then becomes aware that the car is financed then I think that is irrelevant as title to the goods have already passed having satisfied the requirements under Section 27. If the purchaser then decides to sell on the car, then he or she would need to sell it to someone else who meets the same criteria. On the flip side, if Mr T was informed by the finance company before the sale took place, then he would have been on notice and the right to rely on Section 27 would fall away.

Just to clarify, there is no obligation legal or otherwise for a purchaser to carry out a HPI check, particularly if the seller of the car has all the paperwork and documentation then it is reasonable to assume that the seller is acting in good faith and to my mind that is sufficient. Sure the finance company here is alleging negligence but I would say that negligence might only come into play if Mr T had a suspicion that the car was on finance and he then failed to carry out a HPI check. That I think would be difficult to prove unless Mr T comes out and says something to that effect.

Thank you for explaining. This does make sense. So even if we did not buy it from the debtor, it is up to the finance company to show that someone in the chain of sales did not meet the terms of Section 27 (ie they must be innocent and private). If someone in the chain is proven to not be innocent, we will probably lose our claim. But, it is not for us to prove the status of each person in the chain of sales as innocent, it is assumed until the finance company proves otherwise. (That sound about right?)

Correct, Section 28 is only concerned with the presumption. It is presumed, unless proved otherwise, that the car was sold in good faith and without notice of the finance. This is in favour of the purchaser and shifts the burden of proof to the finance company to rebut those presumptions on balance of probabilities that would normally involve some kind of evidence. I know I mentioned that the purchase must be private under (b)(i) of my example, but I think 28(3) would also apply if the seller was a trade of finance purchaser (because of the use of the word and rather than the word or in 28(3) implying both parts must be met as opposed to either part need only be satisfied).

On that last note, if they claim ownership are they allowed to just break in to the car and take it? Or will they try and get us to give them the keys? (Ie should we be worried that if we park the car at our house it will be missing one morning?) Not sure if real life is like the Repo Man movie or not.

Yes and no. They can in the sense that if they honestly or truly believed that the car belonged to them then they could recover the car from your land but they would be subject to the laws of trespassing onto your property. Furthermore, if they did take it then you have the right to sue for the return or cost of the car under trespass to goods as previously mentioned in an earlier post. This is why it is important to put the finance company on notice that if they choose to do that then it is a tort which is a claim actionable by you in the civil courts and you won't hesitate to do so. You could also throw into the mix that as an interim measure, you will consider an injunction against the finance company to return the car until proceedings have concluded together with any costs associated in making an application.

If you want any feedback on your response prior to it being sent, feel free to post it up (personal info removed) and I will add any comment to it.