HELP - sold a car and it was repossessed from the buyer
Discussion
bigee said:
To be fair though have the OP's legal 'team' been given more info than the chaps on here ? Only if the info is like for like can you compare.
^^This^^Advice can only be as good as the sum of the specific facts provided. It can also depend on the level of expertise of the person/s you consult.
Not to mention the old saw that you will get different opinions equal to the number of lawyers present in any given room.
konark said:
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.
It wouldnt be the first time, they would rather be in possession of the car and hand it back later if necessary, Ive known 2 cases where cars had to be returned, 1) the vehicle was snatched from outside a taxi office with the keys in the ignition, not allowed private property, 2) I dont know the full story as the vehicle was repo,d by agents from friends of mine and I declined to be involved had doubts about that one from the start, a fortnight later the vehicle was delivered back to me for the owners to collect.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.
Unless the OP said the check was specifically done by HPI, I don't think we should refer to the check as an HPI check as several companies offer vehicle checks. The OP may have referred to it as an HPI check but that doesn't mean it was HPI as apparently everybody seems to be referring to vehicle checks as HPI checks when they may not be. This doesn't mean that only checks by HPI are good. I'd be perfectly content with a vehicle check done by the RAC for example.
selym said:
hora said:
OP I hope you do the right thing by the new owners. I hope I never do business with you. Ever.
I would hope that anyone would do their prior checks, then all this could be avoided.But, as you say, these checks are quite important.
Can it be said that the OP swapped his car and because the new car turned out to belong to Barclays that he has not been 'paid' for his original TT?
Can he repossess the TT from scrote #1 (ideally without notice to the scrote) on the basis that it has not been paid for?
If he can then I am sure he'd feel happier giving the 12k back to buyer #3!
Can he repossess the TT from scrote #1 (ideally without notice to the scrote) on the basis that it has not been paid for?
If he can then I am sure he'd feel happier giving the 12k back to buyer #3!
The whole things sounds fishy to me
One person stupid enough to have £12k over to a stranger without doing a proper check, but 2 in a row?
What i dont understand here is why the final purchaser was not able to just claim he bought the vehicle in good faith.
The OP says he wasn't aware of the finance, the guy who sold it to him says he did, but what is not in dispute is the the OP did not tell the final purchaser, so if the same rules apply to PCP as HP as everything i have read seems to suggest, this should be problem solved.
One person stupid enough to have £12k over to a stranger without doing a proper check, but 2 in a row?
What i dont understand here is why the final purchaser was not able to just claim he bought the vehicle in good faith.
The OP says he wasn't aware of the finance, the guy who sold it to him says he did, but what is not in dispute is the the OP did not tell the final purchaser, so if the same rules apply to PCP as HP as everything i have read seems to suggest, this should be problem solved.
motoroller said:
Those letters would be on my desk in a matter of weeks, along with additional damages and hire car bills from the buyer.
And back to my original point, which I think has been supported by people far more qualified than me - you probably won't end up paying more than £12k over if you ended up in court. All this hire car costs, etc. are (if even allowable) going to offset the car's loss in value during the new owners usage.Seriously, if I was going to end up paying £12k i'd wait until I absolutely had to (i.e. ordered by a court), and if there was a chance i'd be paying out a bit more, i'd save it in the meantime.
SiH said:
Any further news OP?
Current situation is that the buyer will start legal proceedings next week if I don't refund, but at the same time I've been chasing Barclays and FINALLY got through to someone who understands and deals with these situations. They have sent me forms to be filled in, it's been logged with ActionFraud, and am awaiting response from Barclays.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff