URGENT help... car repossed for unpaid finance

[Mattt]

carmadgaz said:

hugo a gogo said:

what's the chances this woman used her boyfriend's card without his knowledge split up with her bloke and he thought "stuff me paying for her car then"?

In which case he/she may have fked themselves for fraud.

[skwdenyer]

Mr Tea said:

Would your friend not be a bona fide purchaser for value and therefore take the asset free of any lien/charge, or does that bit of equity only apply to houses/land etc?

Sounds like a real boner - how did the finance co. know where to go and recover the vehicle?

I found this elsewhere:

Trading Standards said:

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. Remember, this does not apply to cars which have been stolen, or cars that were subject to a lease or hire agreement.

Thiis from here: LBTH Trading Standards

So, assuming that this wasn't a leased or hired car (in which case it would be theft to sell it on), this seems pretty clear-cut: the buyer should have "good title" to the car.

OP: any news?

[esselte]

skwdenyer said:

Mr Tea said:

Would your friend not be a bona fide purchaser for value and therefore take the asset free of any lien/charge, or does that bit of equity only apply to houses/land etc?

Sounds like a real boner - how did the finance co. know where to go and recover the vehicle?

I found this elsewhere:

Trading Standards said:

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. Remember, this does not apply to cars which have been stolen, or cars that were subject to a lease or hire agreement.

Thiis from here: LBTH Trading Standards

So, assuming that this wasn't a leased or hired car (in which case it would be theft to sell it on), this seems pretty clear-cut: the buyer should have "good title" to the car.

OP: any news?

Is finance still called "Hire purchase"? would this fit the hire agreement in the extract above?

[Syd knee]

Finance is finance by any other name.

[streaky]

esselte said:

skwdenyer said:

Mr Tea said:

Would your friend not be a bona fide purchaser for value and therefore take the asset free of any lien/charge, or does that bit of equity only apply to houses/land etc?

Sounds like a real boner - how did the finance co. know where to go and recover the vehicle?

I found this elsewhere:

Trading Standards said:

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. Remember, this does not apply to cars which have been stolen, or cars that were subject to a lease or hire agreement.

Thiis from here: LBTH Trading Standards

So, assuming that this wasn't a leased or hired car (in which case it would be theft to sell it on), this seems pretty clear-cut: the buyer should have "good title" to the car.

OP: any news?

Is finance still called "Hire purchase"? would this fit the hire agreement in the extract above?

"Hire" and "hire purchase" are different. In the former, title is not intended to pass, in the latter it is - Streaky

[rawgrafix]

It seems pretty clear cut to me, he bought the car in good faith so he get's a clean title on the car.

Should the previous owner default on their aggreement with the finance company then that's their problem, the debt is with them - not your friend.

I know the aggreement would probably have had the car as collateral but where does it stop? What if i'd bought a car and the fella 3 owners previous defaults on his aggreement??

I think legal advice is called for and some sort of claim staked on the car before it goes to auction as they'll want it moved sharpish

[Jasandjules]

I would certainly immediately send a letter (recorded delivery of course) advising the Finance company that you purchased the vehicle in good faith and you therefore believe under the Consumer Credit Act that provides you with fair title.

You therefore believe at this point that the finance company have committed trespass to your chattels, namely a motor vehicle registration xxxx xxx and theft of the same.

It is your intention to seek to take the appropriate and necessary remedial action to protect your position and therefore you give them seven days to provide a full response. You further note that you reserve the right to seek to recover any and all losses incurred as a result of their actions in full.

[HRG.]

skwdenyer said:

I found this elsewhere:

This from here: LBTH Trading Standards

That's worth knowing...

[Jonleeper]

Having dealt with this from a different angle I can say that it is very strange behaviour from the finace company. In my experience, dealing with soldiers who sell cars that they still owe money on, the finance company comes direct to them to demand the outstanding money. One even went as far as to sieze the soldiers new car, that he owed money on to another company, in order to sell it to recoup the money he owed on the first vehicle. Needless to say in that particular instance it got a little messy! I am not sure why they have siezed this car unless they don't realise that it has been sold and they think that the original owner still owns it.