PCP issues owner deceased

[Jmay]

A family member lost her young husband to COVID in April, his car was on a PCP and he died intestate with no estate, she has been battling with Barclays Finance and their representatives Phipps-Cohen for nearly 2 months to get the car collected. They initially accepted there was no estate and said they did not need any proof as the information she sent was sufficient ( she has been left with a large mortgage as they didn’t have life insurance) they have now sent her a ‘voluntary surrender’ form with various questions about the car including the condition, the back page requires a signature stating ‘I understand that the estate will remain liable for any shortfall. The letter with the form indicates that she has requested the ‘voluntary surrender’ which she has not, this form says the vehicle will go to auction again stating his estate will be liable. The finance company told her the vehicle could not be parked on the road and advised her to notify the DVLA therefore it has been on her drive for 10 weeks and is no longer registered to anyone. My relative took advise early on from a friend who works in the industry and she was told under no circumstances to agree for the car to go to auction which she has not but this form appears to be just that. Phipps-Cohen say they can’t collect the car without the form being completed and signed which we feel could compromise her, she has told them providing the agent who collects the car has the relevant paperwork there should be no reason for them not to collect it. I have read on another thread that also if she signs on collection anything about the condition of the vehicle that could also present a problem. Any advice would be very much appreciated as we feel the finance company are trying to intimidate her when the vehicle is now the responsibility of the finance company and not her. Thank you

[R0b]

Has she got evidence in writing that Barclays have accepted there is no estate?*

They cannot force her to keep the car on her driver, that's a typical tactic of theirs to avoid having to pay for the tax. The car belongs to the Barclays and it is their responsibility to collect. She can write to Barclays and say that the car has been on her drive for 10 weeks now, and she is no longer authorising it to remain on there anymore. If the car is not collected, say within the next 7 or 14 days, the car will be deemed to be trespassing and she will take steps remove it from the drive and leave it on a public road. All risk and liability from that point forward will be on Barclays. It's their car and they have a duty to insure and tax the vehicle, not use her property as means of getting around it.

On a side note, if there is no estate, what is the problem signing the voluntary surrender document since they won't be able to claim anything and they have already accepted that there is no estate.

des8*Any thoughts on the estate point?

[Jmay]

Thanks for your reply, She does have a letter from Barclay’s saying she is not responsible for the debt, with regard to the estate they have acknowledged there is no estate but In subsequent correspondence they are saying IF there is no estate she has offered to send proof such as her mortgage statement and a letter from her late husband’s bank which they say is not necessary. The concern about signing the form is that she is being asked to verify the condition of a car she has no responsibility for and she cannot agree to the voluntary surrender of something that is not hers, some of the questions are to confirm the vehicle is road worthy such as the tread on the tyres, internal and external condition whilst there are no known issues it hasn’t moved for 10 weeks through no fault of her own. The car belongs to the finance company it should be them who come out to assess and collect it, this seems to be a standard form sent out when someone wants to voluntarily surrender their vehicle not for someone who has passed away my relative is just his widow not his executor or agent. We have read horror stories of people getting charged for collection purely because they innocently put their signature to a form. Another article said these are tactics Finance companies use saying such forms are mandatory but there are no voluntary clauses in lease agreements and you should not sign anything. Our next move was to do as you suggest and tell them the car will be moved from the drive as she has had to park her own vehicle away from her property. We just wanted some clarification as there is not a lot of information out there for this situation.

[des8]

Condolences on your loss, you have our sympathy.

As her late husband's estate has no assets, and the car which belongs to Barclays, is now on your driveway I would consider her an involuntary bailee.

I certainly would not be signing any documents, but on the contrary be sending a letter telling B****** they have 2 weeks in which to collect their vehicle. Failure and she will arrange for the vehicle to be disposed of by public auction. If it doesn't sell she will arrange for it to be scrapped.
She will retain any monies (less her costs) for their benefit.
All as per the Torts (interference with Goods)Act 1977

OK R0b ?

[Jmay]

Thanks again for your advice which is very much appreciated as suggested my relative advised Barclay's agent Phipps-Cohen a week ago that if the vehicle has not been collected by 5pm on Monday 22nd it will be moved from her property and the risk and liability will be on Barclay's finance. They replied saying they had notified their client but could not give any assurances about timescales. With regard to the previous post's reference to being an involuntary bailee whilst we can consider this option it would give her a lot more stress so our preference is to remove from her property which is now up for sale anyway. Can I just clarify that she would be well within her rights to move the vehicle onto the public highway and leave the keys inside meaning it would be unlocked as we have no way of knowing who to send them to. Thank you

[des8]

Do not just remove to public highway and leave it unlocked.

If the vehicle should be involved in an incident, the person who moved it onto the highway would be involved.
The person placing it on the road could be prosecuted for driving an unlicensed uninsured vehicle on the highway
As bailee she is also the keeper and is the one responsible for seeing the vehicle is not on the road uninsured & unlicensed
As an involuntary bailee she has to take reasonable care of the goods. IMO leaving it unlocked with keys in place would not be considered reasonable.

I would go down the line of writing (recorded letter) &telling B to remove or else it will be sold by public auction in 2 weeks time
If they fail to remove it advertise it on eBay (cost £15 insertion fee) at £1 staring price.
Send link to Barclays.
If at the end of the auction it still hasn't sold try and find a scrap dealer who might take it off her hands.

[R0b]

I agree with Des that leaving the keys in the car unlocked is not reasonable and you are opening yourself up to all sorts of trouble.

I also think it is reasonable to tell them you will be putting it up on ebay for auction but I think there ought to be specific wording in the advert to say that this is being sold under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 to cover your back and the buyer. That can be an effort on your end so it depends on whether you want to do that. I wold be a little uneasy with selling it to a scrap dealer if the car didn't sell, simply because there would be a duty attempt to raise the best price possible in the circumstances.

Putting the car on a public road and posting the keys directly to Barclays Finance (I suggest special delivery) is also not unreasonable and you can call them to find out the address to send them to - see their FAQs section here. There is no law or case law that I am aware of which forces you to become an involuntary bailee so as long as you have identified the owner and gave them a reasonable opportunity to collect, then you are well within your rights to absolve your liability towards the car by leaving it on a public road. You probably want to update the V5C so that the registered keeper becomes Barclays Finance rather than the husband and the wife can go online to https://www.gov.uk/sold-bought-vehicle as long as she has a copy of the V5C.

As for Des' point about driving an uninsured car, the risk is probably low if you are going a few feet and a point of technicality here, couldn't she just roll the car onto the highway rather than turn the engine on and drive it? Wouldn't that avoid the definition of 'driving' an uninsured vehicle Des?

It's a delicate balancing act and lenders are generally unwilling to let it get as far as the car being sold or put on a public road so they tend to step in before that, but not always in which case you need to follow through with your threats. The main point is evidence in the event that they try to issue legal proceedings for losses or other damage suffered to the car and this is where the wife needs to keep things documented in writing. Telephone calls should be followed up to confirm what was discussed, it's all about building a chain of evidence to show Barclays/Phipps-Cohen are acting unreasonably.

[des8]

The risks of moving an uninsured car on the road are real, even if small.

We don't know the situation here, but just pushing a car across the pavement and down the lowered kerb can cause problems if the vehicle picks up speed and the person controlling it loses control. Vehicles on the other side of the road dented? another car comes along at the wrong time? The road is on the side of a hill?
Perhaps I'm just risk adverse having spent a number of years in insurance I've seen all the "impossible" situations happen.

Also as a petrol head I'm fully aware that if you are driving a vehicle (that means steering a vehicle (RTA 1988 sec 192 (1)) you commit an offence if it is uninsured/unlicensed/no MoT. (and that includes if it is being towed by rope or hard bar or just being pushed)

Agreed a very low risk, but we must be careful about advising people to do something which is breaking the law without warning them.

Agree with giving a complete and full description if selling online

[R0b]

I take your point but in the context of this case 'use' and 'move' are not one and the same. The OP would simply be moving it to a public road rather than using it. S.143 of the RTA does say use on a road and that is absolutely not the intention here. Also, 143(3) does say that a person shall not be convicted if he can show that the car did not belong to him and wasn't in his possession under a hire contract or loan.

Anyway, don't want to get too technical on this, but I agree with you generally that there is a risk, I just think the risk in this case is going to be low but of course the acceptance of that risk is up to the wife. Also, unless I missed it, the OP hasn't confirmed if there is insurance or tax on the vehicle so it may be that there is and well, the point is moot.

[des8]

Sec 143 (3) defence also includes AND "that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment,"

"Use" is the physical act of using the vehicle which the driver always does,
A vehicle being moved on the public road* is being used on the road

Can't help getting technical*

[R0b]

Sec 143 (3) defence also includes AND "that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment,"

I'll concede, missed that reference

Might have to agree to disagree on the other point but happy to stand corrected!

[seduraed]

would she be able to get temporary cover for say 1 hour move it to the public road and let the cover lapse?

[des8]

To show how wide "use" is:

Elliot v Gray 1960 1 QB 367* broken down car laid up on road and insurance suspended when another car collided with it.
*Owner convicted of unlawfully using vehicle without policy of insurance. Upheld by Divisional Court.

*Pumbien v Vines 1996 RTR37 undrivable vehicle (flat tires, gearbox not working)*parked* on road
owner convicted**using vehicle on road without insurance. Upheld by Divisional Court.

[des8]

would she be able to get temporary cover for say 1 hour move it to the public road and let the cover lapse?

Yes,could do, but would then be caught under section 143 of being the person using the vehicle uninsured once it was parked up on the basis she put it there and so was the current user (and somewhere there is case law about that)

[seduraed]

Is this something that woould be worth the posters while raising on pepipoo or is that purely parking?