HELP - sold a car and it was repossessed from the buyer
Discussion
motoroller said:
The legal advice isn't a blanket - those are professionals. Who am I going to believe, some anonymous posters on a forum or a professional I've consulted? Let me think...
Yes, do actually think, rather than just assuming they're right.Their advice will have a specific basis, and they will have a reason why they think that the "section 27" - which pretty much everyone in this thread who's read it agrees puts you in the clear - is not valid for your situation.
A lot of people have put effort into providing you with what they think is the correct advice, and if this number of people all agree that the same piece of legislation means the same thing, then there's something very fishy going on for them to be totally incorrect. Please tell us exactly, in full, what you have said to the solicitors, and exactly, in full, what they said in response.
I've met too many "professionals" to accept arguments from authority. Never do something just because someone is telling you to and they should know best. Always find out why they're saying that and make sure you understand it and have run it through a bulls
t filter.
InitialDave said:
Yes, do actually think, rather than just assuming they're right.
Their advice will have a specific basis, and they will have a reason why they think that the "section 27" - which pretty much everyone in this thread who's read it agrees puts you in the clear - is not valid for your situation.
I agree. I don't know definitively whether section 27 applies to PCP type arrangements but I'd be asking the solicitor on what basis they're saying that with such certainty. Their advice will have a specific basis, and they will have a reason why they think that the "section 27" - which pretty much everyone in this thread who's read it agrees puts you in the clear - is not valid for your situation.
I'd guess, however, that the concern is that section 27 applies to hire purchase agreements and vehicles which are subject to a conditional sale agreement. A PCP is not a contract of sale - it is a lease and so the person entering into it does not acquire any title to the vehicle. yes, they can pay a balloon payment and the end and buy it, but that's a separate option to purchase. This is different to an HP agreement, which is a contract of sale and so title does pass, but title doesn't pass until the final payment is made.
I don't know whether there's case law out there on this point - although, coincidentally, I do have a case on at present where section 27 is likely to come into play so I may well spend a bit of time looking at precisely this point in the not too distant future.
motoroller said:
R8Steve said:
Which is the wrong advice, call back and press the matter. E-mail Jes Staley, that should get you a decent response.
I've just done this, all the details are now circulating internally at Barclays so hopefully they get back to me.motoroller said:
RacingPete said:
What I don't get from all the advice is that most are saying that if you buy a car with finance on without knowing it has finance then you have good title on the car.
So why would you do an HPI check for finance?
(I know it is peace of mind), but seems from here it doesn't matter.
Due diligence. That's where my Silver HPI check doesn't quite cut it - or at least it's questionable whether that's enough DD.So why would you do an HPI check for finance?
(I know it is peace of mind), but seems from here it doesn't matter.
There is obviously some cases where this is not true, and thus all the advice on here about the car being yours is wrong... but I have yet to see anyone say why?
funkyrobot said:
Nezquick said:
OP
I am a solicitor and were I in your shoes, there is not a chance in hell that I would be paying any amount of money to the person who bought the car off you. This is really very easy:
1. Let the buyer pursue you BEFORE you pay out anything. Whilst you may feel morally obliged to pay him back, at this stage you are not legally obliged to do so.
2. If (and only if) the buyer does pursue you, via a county court claim, at that stage you then need to consider what to do for the best. Personally, I still wouldn't pay out a penny to the buyer. What I would do is:
3. Apply to the Court to bring in the original seller/swapper of the car as an Additional Third Party (or Part 20 Defendant - Google Part 20 CPR for the details).
4. Your defence is that you swapped the car with the original seller in good faith and had no clue there was any finance outstanding on it. The seller did not give you this information.
5. Only when the COURT has decided who is at fault would I then be willing to pay anyone anything, if you are deemed to be responsible at all that is.
If you pay back the buyer before any of the above, you will never see your £12k again.
In my view, a Judge would take a very dim view of the original seller clearly trying to wriggle out of his obligations and it will give you a formal route with which to pursue him should you be found liable to the buyer.
How would the court handle the OP knowingly selling the car with finance left on it?I am a solicitor and were I in your shoes, there is not a chance in hell that I would be paying any amount of money to the person who bought the car off you. This is really very easy:
1. Let the buyer pursue you BEFORE you pay out anything. Whilst you may feel morally obliged to pay him back, at this stage you are not legally obliged to do so.
2. If (and only if) the buyer does pursue you, via a county court claim, at that stage you then need to consider what to do for the best. Personally, I still wouldn't pay out a penny to the buyer. What I would do is:
3. Apply to the Court to bring in the original seller/swapper of the car as an Additional Third Party (or Part 20 Defendant - Google Part 20 CPR for the details).
4. Your defence is that you swapped the car with the original seller in good faith and had no clue there was any finance outstanding on it. The seller did not give you this information.
5. Only when the COURT has decided who is at fault would I then be willing to pay anyone anything, if you are deemed to be responsible at all that is.
If you pay back the buyer before any of the above, you will never see your £12k again.
In my view, a Judge would take a very dim view of the original seller clearly trying to wriggle out of his obligations and it will give you a formal route with which to pursue him should you be found liable to the buyer.
a) They may also take a dim view of the OP and the way he handled it. That could happen - but the outcome is potentially no worse than him stumping up the £12k now for no reason at all.
b) Were I the OP, I would answer such a question as follows:
1. When I bought the car I was not told there was finance on it and felt I had protected myself sufficiently with a HPI check.
2. During my ownership, I received a call from someone claiming to be from Barclays in respect of there being finance owing on the car. However, as a) I had bought the car in good faith, and b) Barclays did not write to me with any details or requesting payment or return of the car, I was of the view this was simply a mistake or that they had simply chosen to pursue the person who sold it me, i.e. he who owed the debt in the first place.
3. What about the garage telling you it had finance? Well, I had no idea who this was. Furthermore, as Barclays had still not written to me, at all, during my ownership, I assumed the finance issue had been resolved. As such, I felt I was well within my rights to sell on the car.
If I were the OP I'd feel just as aggrieved as the buyer as I, too, would potentially be out of pocket by a significant amount through no fault of my own.
motoroller said:
The car has been repossessed - as I said it was towed away from the buyer with the handbrake on and their possessions in the car. I have no reason to disbelieve that.
The legal advice isn't a blanket - those are professionals. Who am I going to believe, some anonymous posters on a forum or a professional I've consulted? Let me think...
If you read my previous post its clear this car was repossessed by repossession agents (heavies), this is ussually a last resort and would suggest Barclays have been looking for this car and attempting to repossess it for quite a while.The legal advice isn't a blanket - those are professionals. Who am I going to believe, some anonymous posters on a forum or a professional I've consulted? Let me think...
Are Barclays so stupid they would repossess a car if they had no legal right to do so?
The car has changed hands twice since the original debtor, surely they would have assumed that at least one of those bought in good faith so has good title.
The answer hinges on the type of finance on the car, in some types like logbook loans the debt goes with the car (maybe)and if it was leased or hired the s.27 protection wouldn't be applicable, as the original seller would have effectively stolen the car.
The car has changed hands twice since the original debtor, surely they would have assumed that at least one of those bought in good faith so has good title.
The answer hinges on the type of finance on the car, in some types like logbook loans the debt goes with the car (maybe)and if it was leased or hired the s.27 protection wouldn't be applicable, as the original seller would have effectively stolen the car.
Lurking Lawyer said:
I agree. I don't know definitively whether section 27 applies to PCP type arrangements but I'd be asking the solicitor on what basis they're saying that with such certainty.
I'd guess, however, that the concern is that section 27 applies to hire purchase agreements and vehicles which are subject to a conditional sale agreement. A PCP is not a contract of sale - it is a lease and so the person entering into it does not acquire any title to the vehicle. yes, they can pay a balloon payment and the end and buy it, but that's a separate option to purchase. This is different to an HP agreement, which is a contract of sale and so title does pass, but title doesn't pass until the final payment is made.
I'm an interested amateur but my understanding is that, legally, HP and PCP are the same. On both title passes automatically with the final payment.I'd guess, however, that the concern is that section 27 applies to hire purchase agreements and vehicles which are subject to a conditional sale agreement. A PCP is not a contract of sale - it is a lease and so the person entering into it does not acquire any title to the vehicle. yes, they can pay a balloon payment and the end and buy it, but that's a separate option to purchase. This is different to an HP agreement, which is a contract of sale and so title does pass, but title doesn't pass until the final payment is made.
motoroller said:
There have been several suggestions that I'm either friends with the seller (nope, never had contact with him before), or that I knew about the finance (where has this idea come from, why would I conduct a swap with an unknown amount of finance on a car?!?)
You've said you did a "basic HPI". As far as I am aware, any HPI check, with HPI, not text check st, will tell you if there is finance on it. The clue is in the name, HPI, ie Hire Purchase Investigations. So it MUST have told you, either yes or no.
The "extra part" is all the checking that the v5 is legit, not faked, and chassis numbers / engine numbers tie up and need sight of the car, docs etc, and you then "update" the check .
So again, if you had a clean HPI and brought it privately for "proper value" you are an innocent third party and should have just told the finance co that when you were contacted by them.
Since the Barclays loan may be a stocking finance facility, are you SURE the seller was private. Again, if he is or was a dealer, then the buck automatically stops with him and you become an innocent third party with title. But you should have told Barclays that and not sold it on.
s3fella said:
You've said you did a "basic HPI". As far as I am aware, any HPI check, with HPI, not text check st, will tell you if there is finance on it. The clue is in the name, HPI, ie Hire Purchase Investigations.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's simply not the case.t, will tell you if there is finance on it. The clue is in the name, HPI, ie Hire Purchase Investigations.I get the impression that you have assumed he used this service.
He clearly didn't: it was an 'el cheapo' one where a finance check costs extra: example here.
You can find other similar ones with a simple Google search.
Red Devil said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's simply not the case.
I get the impression that you have assumed he used this service.
He clearly didn't: it was an 'el cheapo' one where a finance check costs extra: example here.
You can find other similar ones with a simple Google search.
So saving £8 going cheap has potentially cost him £-2k+ all the stress....I get the impression that you have assumed he used this service.
He clearly didn't: it was an 'el cheapo' one where a finance check costs extra: example here.
You can find other similar ones with a simple Google search.
I'd wager he will never do that again.
OP comes on and asks for advice and he is told to get proper legal advice. He gets proper legal advice and then he is told to ignore it.
Maybe the people who gave the legal advice have answers to some of the questions that people on here don't...
Or maybe they just know what they're talking about?
Maybe the people who gave the legal advice have answers to some of the questions that people on here don't...
Or maybe they just know what they're talking about?
Devil2575 said:
OP comes on and asks for advice and he is told to get proper legal advice. He gets proper legal advice and then he is told to ignore it.
Maybe the people who gave the legal advice have answers to some of the questions that people on here don't...
Or maybe they just know what they're talking about?
It's the internet - remember that everyone here is right!Maybe the people who gave the legal advice have answers to some of the questions that people on here don't...
Or maybe they just know what they're talking about?
Welshbeef said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
What's the fking point of a HPI check that doesn't check for outstanding finance?
Exactly. king point of a HPI check that doesn't check for outstanding finance?Is it stolen yes or no
Is it a ringer
Is two cars welded together
The seller has outstanding finance secured to the car
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff