Car Nicked From Dealer - What Do I Do Now?

[Griffith4ever]

BertBert said:

...... said:

I've just finished a phone call with the dealer and a separate phone call with West Midlands Police after giving them the number the car; they've taken my details, added the car to the ANPR list etc. and reassured that they are going to investigate. They say I need to put the claim through on my insurance, so that settles that part of the debate.

The call to the dealer has given me the name of the company from where the car was stolen, and it's been said it was stolen from outside the garage premises, and they've offered to fund part of the excess as a goodwill gesture. We'll see what happens.

Doesn't seem like much point trying to reject the car if I have to claim off my insurance anyway, so now typing a quick update on PH while on hold to them.

did WMP confirm the crime ref no that the dealer gave you?

I would not take the legal advice from the cops. They haven't clue half the time on civil matters.

[vaud]

Griffith4ever said:

I would not take the legal advice from the cops. They haven't clue half the time on civil matters.

It's not an unreasonable piece of advice.

"My car has been stolen"
"Tell your insurer... the are the experts..."

If the insurer then provides different advice, then fine, but given the OP pays for a policy, then the insurer can advise in this scenario if he is covered or if he needs to do something different.

[vaderface]

Pit Pony said:

Number 1. Ask for a crime reference number.
B) contact the police and either report the theft, or ask for more details for you to pass onto your insurer.
iii ) write a letter rejecting the car, demanding £2k, given that it broke down on the way home.
4) contact your bank asking for reversal of monies paid
e) go to Google reviews write a scathing review of said dealer.
Vi) send around Danny
7) Claim on insurance. Let them investigate the tts.

OT but is that taken of Buzz of Home Alone if it was

[......]

Issue by issue:

Crime Reference Number:
They did find it, although it did take a good five minutes. They've generated a new one anyway as part of logging my details.

Garage from where the car was stolen:
I have the name. But, I haven't yet been able to find it as the name is rather generic. No CCTV yet, and I have asked for it.

Has the car actually been stolen:
Looking at the money, it is a £2k car. Fixing the car gives a roughly £1400 income, saying it's been nicked and offering half towards the excess gives £1750 income, so, we're looking at £350 more by saying it's been nicked. I wouldn't fake a car theft for £350. But... the odds of getting caught aren't exactly against you these days. It's possible it could have actually been stolen, but without additional evidence it looks dodgy.

Rejecting the car:
What's indisputable is that I definitely should have been much more assertive about not accepting the car. I suppose it's academic, but this leaves a very bad taste... I don't know though. It doesn't feel right that I'm being penalised for someone else's lax security. That's how it feels. And yes PistonRing, you are correct about a city beginning with B. Which I've just found out that said city has six times more vehicle theft than entire of my home county.

Part of me is hoping things might get better.

[loskie]

Alex Z said:

The car was unfit anyway, so reject it on those grounds. The (slightly dubious) fact it’s been stolen is not your problem.

How can it be rejected? It's not in the OPs possession nor allegedly the garages. It's been "stolen".

Has it been reported to the Police? By the garage as it's in their care or lack of.

[Mr.Chips]

Firstly, I find it difficult to believe that the OP will have to claim from his own insurance. Surely, his first claim is against the selling garage as they collected the faulty vehicle from the motorway services, so it then became their responsibility. I appreciate that the issue is clouded by the fact that the selling garage sent the vehicle to another garage for repair, from where it was stolen, but it is then up to the selling garage to claim their costs from the repair garage, as it became their responsibility once they accepted it for repair.
I understand what people are saying regarding not being able to claim from the repair garage unless they were negligent, but surely, leaving the vehicle outside IS negligent. If the vehicle had not been repaired at this point then they probably thought it would be safe left outside, obviously this was wrong. For their sake and for the OP, I hope they have functioning cctv.

[BertBert]

I think you'll find it's only the garage's responsibility if they have been negligent. I've just been through a case with a lot of similarities of someone claiming against us for diverging that happened to them. The barrister was very clear that there had to be negligence on our part for there to be liability.

[ukwill]

Use the legal insurance you have with your car insurance.

[OutInTheShed]

Where is the key?

[......]

The dealer recieved the key in the post. I have asked, but not been updated on, whether the car was stolen with the keys. Same with CCTV.

[Alex Z]

loskie said:

Alex Z said:

The car was unfit anyway, so reject it on those grounds. The (slightly dubious) fact it’s been stolen is not your problem.

How can it be rejected? It's not in the OPs possession nor allegedly the garages. It's been "stolen".

Has it been reported to the Police? By the garage as it's in their care or lack of.

Surely this depends on the amount of time that has passed? If the faults have been reported and agreed to be present by the dealer, and they’ve tried and failed to fix them before the car goes missing, then a rejection may still be possible.

If it’s been “stolen” immediately after the first report and they’ve not had time to look at it then clearly not.

[smokey mow]

Alex Z said:

loskie said:

Alex Z said:

The car was unfit anyway, so reject it on those grounds. The (slightly dubious) fact it’s been stolen is not your problem.

How can it be rejected? It's not in the OPs possession nor allegedly the garages. It's been "stolen".

Has it been reported to the Police? By the garage as it's in their care or lack of.

Surely this depends on the amount of time that has passed? If the faults have been reported and agreed to be present by the dealer, and they’ve tried and failed to fix them before the car goes missing, then a rejection may still be possible.

If it’s been “stolen” immediately after the first report and they’ve not had time to look at it then clearly not.

Why would any of that matter?

The OP hadn’t rejected the car when they handed it over to the garage and therefore they were still the legal owner at the time it was stolen.

[DonkeyApple]

smokey mow said:

Why would any of that matter?

The OP hadn’t rejected the car when they handed it over to the garage and therefore they were still the legal owner at the time it was stolen.

But the garage is refusing to fix the faults.

[andburg]

I'd be asking for the dealer's insurer and policy details then raising a claim through my own.

In my head you claim from your insurer who claim from the dealer's who then in theory should claim from the policy of the garage doing the work. Even if it it was stolen with keys, you followed the procedure they wanted so its not negligence on your part.

[OutInTheShed]

andburg said:

I'd be asking for the dealer's insurer and policy details then raising a claim through my own.

In my head you claim from your insurer who claim from the dealer's who then in theory should claim from the policy of the garage doing the work. Even if it it was stolen with keys, you followed the procedure they wanted so its not negligence on your part.

But your insurer will pay out the value of a broken down banger, less the excess.
That could be quite a small sim indeed.

Insurance companies don't pursue one another through the courts for pocket change.
It's quite likely a sum that isn't even worth their own admin time.

Also, the garage's cover for this sort of incident would be some sort of business policy, not a normal motor policy.

[andburg]

OutInTheShed said:

But your insurer will pay out the value of a broken down banger, less the excess.
That could be quite a small sim indeed.

Insurance companies don't pursue one another through the courts for pocket change.
It's quite likely a sum that isn't even worth their own admin time.

Also, the garage's cover for this sort of incident would be some sort of business policy, not a normal motor policy.

I agree, the garage/dealer insurance should cover the cost of them essentially buying a car to replace OP's at trade. The dealer would have to source this or refund OP.

[Dingu]

andburg said:

I'd be asking for the dealer's insurer and policy details then raising a claim through my own.

In my head you claim from your insurer who claim from the dealer's who then in theory should claim from the policy of the garage doing the work. Even if it it was stolen with keys, you followed the procedure they wanted so its not negligence on your part.

You don’t need to be negligent to claim off your own comprehensive policy. To be liable to a third party there does need to be negligence.

Else a properly maintained tree blowing onto a car wouldn’t be paid by anyone for example. Or many thefts wouldn’t be covered as they had locked it in a sensible place. Etc.

Not saying that the dealer hasn’t been negligent. Just that the OP not having been doesn’t stop them claiming off their own policy.

[andburg]

No it's more the opposite.

if OP parked his car in the street with the keys on the roof and it was stolen I'd fully expect his insurer to at least try and argue he had been negligent and to refuse a claim.

[Dingu]

andburg said:

No it's more the opposite.

if OP parked his car in the street with the keys on the roof and it was stolen I'd fully expect his insurer to at least try and argue he had been negligent and to refuse a claim.

Ahh I see, sorry pre coffee reading.

[OutInTheShed]

andburg said:

I agree, the garage/dealer insurance should cover the cost of them essentially buying a car to replace OP's at trade. The dealer would have to source this or refund OP.

What we think morally 'should' happen, what's 'right and wrong' applying the law strictly, and what's likely to happen are not all the same thing.

Small disputes over a few hundred quid or a couple of grand don't all get hammered out to the nth degree



Generally, if Ipark my car in the orad outside Geoff's garage, its theft risk is covered by my policy.
Likewise if he parks it there after working on it, it's covered by my policy.

But if it disappears before I pick it up, and he can't produce the key for it, he has questions to answer!

Here there is a difference, it was not the owner/keeper/insured person who took it to a garage in the badlands where it got stolen. The seller made that decision and took that action.



The interesting point of this case is that the OP's insurer should really only be on the hook for the value of the car at the moment it was stolen.
Which isn't very much, because the car didn't actually work properly.
So the dispute with the seller might not go away?

I think it's a legitimate view that:
The seller supplied a fulty car
The buyer returned the car 'for repair, refund or replacement'
The seller needs to supply either the car repaired, a replacement or a refund.