Buy a car with no logbook?
Discussion
cat with a hat said:
Breadvan72 said:
Hate to accept? Er, what? I don't get emotional about V5s. The boring point is that they don't prove ownership. They're not partial proof. They're neutral on the point. Sometimes (often) the keeper is also the owner. Sometimes the keeper isn't the owner. It's not a complicated thing.
I never said they prove ownership.My key point is in bold.
So there we go. The presence of a V5C in the vendor's name adds not-very-much proof of actual legal ownership beyond the undisputed fact that they're selling it.
TooMany2cvs said:
cat with a hat said:
Breadvan72 said:
Hate to accept? Er, what? I don't get emotional about V5s. The boring point is that they don't prove ownership. They're not partial proof. They're neutral on the point. Sometimes (often) the keeper is also the owner. Sometimes the keeper isn't the owner. It's not a complicated thing.
I never said they prove ownership.My key point is in bold.
So there we go. The presence of a V5C in the vendor's name adds not-very-much proof of actual legal ownership beyond the undisputed fact that they're selling it.
The truth is all you can do is assess the situation based on probability and a V5 contributes to the probability.
I look forward to further smug references from you both repeating information that 90% of users before clicking on this thread already know and is not relevant to the response in hand. What will you pick at next? The fact someone has said V5, not V5c?
clearly ownership is very hard if not impossible to prove. The presence of a receipt (if not forged) can show a change of ownership, but only shows what happened at that moment in time. Perhaps we should lobby DVLA to invent a register of owners in addition to the register of keepers.
Bert
Bert
The one form of proof of ownership of a car that I wouldn't use is a document that says on its face that it ain't proof of ownership. I don't know why cat with a hat is finding this so upsetting, as it really isn't a big deal. I don't make the rule; I just mention it on these threads, because surprisingly many people seem unaware that a V5 proves big fat bupkiss as to ownership.
People also seem to have a problem with the concept of proof, in general, as people often ask on legal threads "how would you prove X?". The answer is by referring to whatever probative evidence is to hand. The V5 disqualifies itself from being probative on the issue of vehicle ownership. English law in general does not call for title documents in respect of movable property. Sometimes (maybe even often, as most people aren't crooks) you can just take the seller's word that he or she owns the thing that he or she is selling.
People also seem to have a problem with the concept of proof, in general, as people often ask on legal threads "how would you prove X?". The answer is by referring to whatever probative evidence is to hand. The V5 disqualifies itself from being probative on the issue of vehicle ownership. English law in general does not call for title documents in respect of movable property. Sometimes (maybe even often, as most people aren't crooks) you can just take the seller's word that he or she owns the thing that he or she is selling.
I wouldn't put it that way. There is such a thing as proof, but what the proof is varies from case to case. That is true of any factual issue that is disputed. If X says that such and such a thing happened, the proof might just be X saying that it did and being believed, or it might be a video of the thing happening, or some documents about it, or all sorts of things. There's no sorcery involved, just evidence.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff