car sold while still on finance with out consent

[Sapphire]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

So did you sign the log book over to him, if not then he's forged your signature and thats fraud. If you did sign the log book then I doubt if you will have much of an argument.

[labman]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 gives ‘good title’ to the innocent private purchaser of a car which later turns out to be subject to a claim by a finance company because of a previous, unpaid hire-purchase agreement. This means that the finance company is not entitled to repossess the car from you.

I refer you back to my post 6 for action I think you should take.

[fairy dust 49]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

No I didn`t sign the car over as when he took the car the log book was still in my name.

[labman]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

Given the gravity of some of the offences that have been committed, I guess the big question is are you prepared to report your son for these crimes?

[lindalou]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 gives ‘good title’ to the innocent private purchaser of a car which later turns out to be subject to a claim by a finance company because of a previous, unpaid hire-purchase agreement. This means that the finance company is not entitled to repossess the car from you.

I refer you back to my post 6 for action I think you should take.

Yes but only if it was purchased from the "buyer" on a conditional sale agreement or HP.
If the car was bought from the son the new owner would be the reciever of stolen goods.

I dont know where you got this quote from, it is correct in what it says although the act in question to my knowledge is the hire purchase act 1965 section 27 i think.

The act specifies "in good faith".

LL

[lindalou]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

Hello

It really is esential that we find out what kind of agreement this is.
Espcially if it is going to be reported to the police, if it is a hp agreement the car never belonged to the OP and was stolen from the creditor.

LL

[Sapphire]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

No I didn`t sign the car over as when he took the car the log book was still in my name.

Ok so when the car was sold the log booked needed to by signed by the registered keeper which is you, and you did not sign to release the car.

If thats so then your son must have signed the log book which in itself is forgery and a criminal offence, you must report this to the police, until you do this he will get away with it.

If the coppers ask why you gave him the log book then your honest answer was so that he could insure/tax the car, tell them you were loaning him the car not giving it to him.

Re: the finance on the car, I sold my old car in October last year, although I didn't have finance left on it I did chat to the dealer where I bought my new one and he informed me that you can indeed sell a financed car, but you must understand that you still owe the money and it has to be paid.

I think your only way of somehow getting anything out of this is to report what your son has done, horrid I know, but to be honest any son that can do that to his parents doesn't deserve you.

[labman]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

It is possible to get a log book sent in your name simply by phoning the dvla. A notice would be sent to the previous registered keeper though.

@Lindalou I found that somewhere on the Direct Gov website.

[lindalou]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

OK so I will explain why it is so important to find out if this is either a fixed sum restricted use loan or a hire purchase/conditional sale agreement.
You’re talking about reporting this to the police. Now just suppose it is a hire purchase agreement.
The car represents the creditors security on the unpaid balance of the loan, if the car is gone, so is their security.
They may say they want their money back, in fact I would be very surprised if there was not a term in the agreement that specified such.
You see they will presume that the car is insured against theft.
The OP may find himself with a demand for immediate repayment.
LL
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

It is possible to get a log book sent in your name simply by phoning the dvla. A notice would be sent to the previous registered keeper though.

@Lindalou I found that somewhere on the Direct Gov website.

OK so I will explain why it is so important to find out if this is either a fixed sum restricted use loan or a hire purchase/conditional sale agreement.
You’re talking about reporting this to the police. Now just suppose it is a hire purchase agreement.
The car represents the creditors security on the unpaid balance of the loan, if the car is gone, so is their security.
They may say they want their money back, in fact I would be very surprised if there was not a term in the agreement that specified such.
You see they will presume that the car is insured against theft.
The OP may find himself with a demand for immediate repayment.
LL

[Sapphire]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

Yep I get that LL but surely if the OP can prove that he loaned the car to his son and the soon sold the car fraudulently, then he has a case against the HP company demanding immediate payment.

[lindalou]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

It is possible to get a log book sent in your name simply by phoning the dvla. A notice would be sent to the previous registered keeper though.

@Lindalou I found that somewhere on the Direct Gov website.

Hello Labman

Yes i found it , it is incorrect, the measures are part of the hire purchase act 1965.

It is understandable though. the consumer credit act repealed most of the afforementioned in 1985 apart from part 3, this is the bit that contains the measures that protect unsuspecting buyers of cars already under a HP agreement.

The way that the act does this is quite intersting. Generally on a conditional sale the buyer does not take possession of the car untill the last installment.

What the act does is say that if someone buys a car with outstanding HP the title is considered to be transfered to the sellar(hirer) at the point of sale, thus enableing him to legally make the sale.

Notice though that this right would not be applicable to anyone other than the hirer, so if the car was stolen it would not apply.

LL

[lindalou]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

Yep I get that LL but surely if the OP can prove that he loaned the car to his son and the soon sold the car fraudulently, then he has a case against the HP company demanding immediate payment.

I thinl that however you look at it, it is going to be considered theft, after all is the OP going to report that the car was loaned?

Could he say the son had the car stolen? you see the problem.

Of course all this is irrellavant if it is a fixed sum loan, report it no problem.

LL

[bluebottle]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

Okay. Let's look at the facts we have to hand.

If the car was bought on hire purchase, it remains the property of the finance company until the final payment is made, when proper right and title passes to the debtor. If it was bought on credit, proper right and title is vested in the debtor from the outset.

The OP says they loaned the car to their son on a temporary basis until he got his own car back. The son, knowing this, then sold the car to a third party without the OP's knowledge and consent. This establishes that the son assumed rights of ownership he did not possess. The OP's negative consent to the sale of the car compounds this.

Why have Black Horse Finance instructed the OP to report the matter to the police?

If the car is on hire purchase, the OP is the keeper on behalf of Black Horse Finance, who have proper right and title to the car until the final payment is made. If the car was bought on credit, the OP is the owner and proper right and title is vested in the OP.

Where a vehicle is being purchased on hire purchase, it is perfectly correct and proper for the finance company to ask the debtor to report a vehicle as stolen on their behalf as their agent. Where a vehicle is being purchased on credit, the debtor, as the owner, is responsible for reporting the vehicle as stolen.

In both cases, what Black Horse Finance has told the OP is correct.

However, Black Horse Finance's reluctance to reclaim the car on the grounds they cite seems rather odd. The reason for this is once a vehicle is reported to police as stolen, it is then liable to be stopped, seized and impounded until the question of who has proper right and title in it is established.

Where does the son stand in all this? The answer to that question is in something brown and smelly and up to his eyeballs.

Assuming rights of ownership he did not possess, knowing he had to return the car, is Theft, per se, under Section 1, Theft Act 1968. The offence is committed against the OP or Black Horse Finance, whichever the case may be. Selling the car to a third party, knowing he did not have the right to do so, is Fraud by False Misrepresentation under Section 2, Fraud Act 2006. The offence is committed against the person who bought the car from him. A person can only be convicted of the offence of Handling Stolen Goods, under Section 22, Theft Act 1968, where they know or believe the goods in question to be stolen.

If the OP reports the car to the police as stolen, as stated above, it will be stopped, seized and impounded until such time as the question as to who has proper right and title in the car is established.

What of the issues relating to the V5C (Vehicle Registration Document/VDC/Logbook)?

In hindsight, the OP handing the V5C to their son was a mistake. However, we learn from our mistakes and become better people as a result. From what I have read above, it appears that the son sent the V5C to DVLA and obtained a new V5C in his name. As the registered owner/keeper has to sign Part 8 of the V5C as well as the new owner/keeper, the only way the son could have obtained a new V5C is by forging the OP's signature, which is Forgery, under the Forgery Act 1913, and obtaining the replacement V5C is Fraud by False Misrepresentation, under Section 2, Fraud Act 2006. A further offence of Possessing an Article for Use in Fraud, under Section 6, Fraud Act 2006, was committed when he handed the V5C to the new owner. There may also be an offence of Using A False Instrument with Intent to Deceive, under the Forgery Act 1913, in respect of the V5C the son sent to DVLA to obtain a V5C in his name.

What penalties can the son expect if arrested, prosecuted and convicted? The penalties listed are the maximum prescribed by law:-

Theft - 7 years imprisonment
Forgery - 2 years' imprisonment
Using A False Instrument with Intent to Deceive - 2 years' imprisonment
Fraud by False Misrepresentation - 10 years' imprisonment
Possession of Articles for Use in Fraud - 5 years' imprisonment, unlimited fine or both

The OP says their son lives in Scotland, which has a different legal system from that of England and Wales. If the offences were committed in Scotland, it will be dealt with under Scottish Law of which I have a very limited knowledge. If the offences were committed in England, then English Law applies.

Whichever way the OP wishes to look at this case, they have some very difficult decisions to make and I do not envy them.

[lindalou]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

Okay. Let's look at the facts we have to hand.

If the car was bought on hire purchase, it remains the property of the finance company until the final payment is made, when proper right and title passes to the debtor. If it was bought on credit, proper right and title is vested in the debtor from the outset.

The OP says they loaned the car to their son on a temporary basis until he got his own car back. The son, knowing this, then sold the car to a third party without the OP's knowledge and consent. This establishes that the son assumed rights of ownership he did not possess. The OP's negative consent to the sale of the car compounds this.

Why have Black Horse Finance instructed the OP to report the matter to the police?

If the car is on hire purchase, the OP is the keeper on behalf of Black Horse Finance, who have proper right and title to the car until the final payment is made. If the car was bought on credit, the OP is the owner and proper right and title is vested in the OP.

Where a vehicle is being purchased on hire purchase, it is perfectly correct and proper for the finance company to ask the debtor to report a vehicle as stolen on their behalf as their agent. Where a vehicle is being purchased on credit, the debtor, as the owner, is responsible for reporting the vehicle as stolen.

In both cases, what Black Horse Finance has told the OP is correct.

However, Black Horse Finance's reluctance to reclaim the car on the grounds they cite seems rather odd. The reason for this is once a vehicle is reported to police as stolen, it is then liable to be stopped, seized and impounded until the question of who has proper right and title in it is established.

Where does the son stand in all this? The answer to that question is in something brown and smelly and up to his eyeballs.

Assuming rights of ownership he did not possess, knowing he had to return the car, is Theft, per se, under Section 1, Theft Act 1968. The offence is committed against the OP or Black Horse Finance, whichever the case may be. Selling the car to a third party, knowing he did not have the right to do so, is Fraud by False Misrepresentation under Section 2, Fraud Act 2006. The offence is committed against the person who bought the car from him. A person can only be convicted of the offence of Handling Stolen Goods, under Section 22, Theft Act 1968, where they know or believe the goods in question to be stolen.

If the OP reports the car to the police as stolen, as stated above, it will be stopped, seized and impounded until such time as the question as to who has proper right and title in the car is established.

What of the issues relating to the V5C (Vehicle Registration Document/VDC/Logbook)?

In hindsight, the OP handing the V5C to their son was a mistake. However, we learn from our mistakes and become better people as a result. From what I have read above, it appears that the son sent the V5C to DVLA and obtained a new V5C in his name. As the registered owner/keeper has to sign Part 8 of the V5C as well as the new owner/keeper, the only way the son could have obtained a new V5C is by forging the OP's signature, which is Forgery, under the Forgery Act 1913, and obtaining the replacement V5C is Fraud by False Misrepresentation, under Section 2, Fraud Act 2006. A further offence of Possessing an Article for Use in Fraud, under Section 6, Fraud Act 2006, was committed when he handed the V5C to the new owner. There may also be an offence of Using A False Instrument with Intent to Deceive, under the Forgery Act 1913, in respect of the V5C the son sent to DVLA to obtain a V5C in his name.

What penalties can the son expect if arrested, prosecuted and convicted? The penalties listed are the maximum prescribed by law:-

Theft - 7 years imprisonment
Forgery - 2 years' imprisonment
Using A False Instrument with Intent to Deceive - 2 years' imprisonment
Fraud by False Misrepresentation - 10 years' imprisonment
Possession of Articles for Use in Fraud - 5 years' imprisonment, unlimited fine or both

The OP says their son lives in Scotland, which has a different legal system from that of England and Wales. If the offences were committed in Scotland, it will be dealt with under Scottish Law of which I have a very limited knowledge. If the offences were committed in England, then English Law applies.

Whichever way the OP wishes to look at this case, they have some very difficult decisions to make and I do not envy them.

Yes but in addition I would say that a reaon for a HP company to want this reported as theft rather than a sale is that it entitles them to the property if it is recovered, as said earlier the HP act would prevent them re claiming a vehicle that was sold by the lender to a third party.

LL

[lindalou]

Re: car sold while still on finance with out consent

Just to clarify further.

If the lender on a HP agreement sold the vehicle prior to the end of the contract he would not be committing a criminal offence, it would be a civil matter only.

LL