so if my V5C is "not proof of ownership" then what is..?
Discussion
Zee Researcha said:
Let's just take this one step at a time in the hope the penny drops. Ok here goes:
1. For an exchange / trade to happen one must prove that you own that in your possession. If you buy something with no proof of absolute ownership then you run the risk of losing it if someone makes a claim.
2. Title is absolute proof of ownership ( just look it up in any law dictionary.
3. For a manufacturer to exchange he must provide proof of ownership. The law is all about proof. Note: possession is not proof hence the DVLA calling people registered keeper. This was the original question I was answering.
Now hopefully you are all still with me and I haven't lost anyone.
4. Since the manufacturer did not receive the car he must prove "ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP" the car is his. (I hope you guys still remember the definition of Title, if not please see above). Therefore, the MANUFACTURER makes a STATEMENT that he is the point of ORIGIN to determine ownership I.e Manufacturer Statement (Certificate) of Origin.
It is important to point out Origin is to do with ownership and not geography.
5. The manufacturer then exchanges this proof of absolute ownership (Title) for payment. Therefore the M.S.O / M.C.O is the proof of Absolute Ownership.
Question for you guys, normally this exchange is with the dealer so:
- How come you don't get the MSO when the dealer does?
- Who gives the dealer the power to give this document of proof of absolute ownership to another?
- Who gets this document?
- If I don't have this document of absolute ownership then what am I? (See V5C form for a big juicy clue)
- Who is the true owner of the car I forked our hard earned money for? ... and who cares if your not the owner right...?!
I'll be marking the answers so please think.
This would all be fine if you weren't talking complete b1. For an exchange / trade to happen one must prove that you own that in your possession. If you buy something with no proof of absolute ownership then you run the risk of losing it if someone makes a claim.
2. Title is absolute proof of ownership ( just look it up in any law dictionary.
3. For a manufacturer to exchange he must provide proof of ownership. The law is all about proof. Note: possession is not proof hence the DVLA calling people registered keeper. This was the original question I was answering.
Now hopefully you are all still with me and I haven't lost anyone.
4. Since the manufacturer did not receive the car he must prove "ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP" the car is his. (I hope you guys still remember the definition of Title, if not please see above). Therefore, the MANUFACTURER makes a STATEMENT that he is the point of ORIGIN to determine ownership I.e Manufacturer Statement (Certificate) of Origin.
It is important to point out Origin is to do with ownership and not geography.
5. The manufacturer then exchanges this proof of absolute ownership (Title) for payment. Therefore the M.S.O / M.C.O is the proof of Absolute Ownership.
Question for you guys, normally this exchange is with the dealer so:
- How come you don't get the MSO when the dealer does?
- Who gives the dealer the power to give this document of proof of absolute ownership to another?
- Who gets this document?
- If I don't have this document of absolute ownership then what am I? (See V5C form for a big juicy clue)
- Who is the true owner of the car I forked our hard earned money for? ... and who cares if your not the owner right...?!
I'll be marking the answers so please think.
ks.Zee Researcha said:
1. For an exchange / trade to happen one must prove that you own that in your possession.
Hands up who has ever had to?Zee Researcha said:
2. Title is absolute proof of ownership ( just look it up in any law dictionary.
So is this "title" in some standardised form? Surely it must be...Zee Researcha said:
3. For a manufacturer to exchange he must provide proof of ownership.
Hands up who has ever been provided with it?Zee Researcha said:
Now hopefully you are all still with me and I haven't lost anyone.
Only the plot.Zee Researcha said:
4. Since the manufacturer did not receive the car he must prove "ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP" the car is his. (I hope you guys still remember the definition of Title, if not please see above). Therefore, the MANUFACTURER makes a STATEMENT that he is the point of ORIGIN to determine ownership I.e Manufacturer Statement (Certificate) of Origin.
And hands up who's ever been provided with that?Zee Researcha said:
5. The manufacturer then exchanges this proof of absolute ownership (Title) for payment. Therefore the M.S.O / M.C.O is the proof of Absolute Ownership.
Hands again?Zee Researcha said:
Question for you guys, normally this exchange is with the dealer so:
- How come you don't get the MSO when the dealer does?
- Who gives the dealer the power to give this document of proof of absolute ownership to another?
- Who gets this document?
- If I don't have this document of absolute ownership then what am I? (See V5C form for a big juicy clue)
- Who is the true owner of the car I forked our hard earned money for? ... and who cares if your not the owner right...?!
Please, Sir! Me, Sir! I know, Sir!- How come you don't get the MSO when the dealer does?
- Who gives the dealer the power to give this document of proof of absolute ownership to another?
- Who gets this document?
- If I don't have this document of absolute ownership then what am I? (See V5C form for a big juicy clue)
- Who is the true owner of the car I forked our hard earned money for? ... and who cares if your not the owner right...?!
It's the lizard illuminati, isn't it, Sir? Only David of the family Icke can save us all!
Zee Researcha said:
Ok, I see what you have done. You've confused my statements as questions and attempted to answer them. Not what I was looking for and since you failed to answer any questions then F minus and no donut.
I would have marked you down for mentioning the David Icke loon but you're at the bottom anyway.
Do you realise this website is based in the UK? So a title and a F minus doesn't actually have translate here? No?I would have marked you down for mentioning the David Icke loon but you're at the bottom anyway.
Zee Researcha said:
Ok, I see what you have done. You've confused my statements as questions and attempted to answer them.
I think it was the way you said "Question for you", followed by question marks at the end of each "statement" that might have confused me.<hangs head in shame>
Oh, wait. You then go on to berate me for failing to answer any questions, after berating me for for answering statements. Now I'm really confused.
No, wait. There's an easy explanation. Big fan of easy explanations, me.
Zee Researcha said:
BAM225 said:
Do you realise this website is based in the UK? So a title and a F minus doesn't actually have translate here? No?
I'm just marking answers to my questions pose and seeing deflecting statements, abuse, attempts of humour and ridicule as a cry for help by those unable to answer. Entertaining and sad at the same time.Zee Researcha said:
DanL said:
how, with references, all of the points you asserted above are correct in the UK. Particularly in relation to the statement that origin is to do with ownership rather than geography, but also the other statements made.
F- for failing to answer any questions. No donut for you.
Zee Researcha said:
Still dodging answering my questions even after I have laid everything our for you. You think a receipt is proof of ownership. Let's face it, you have not got a clue.
I'm going to give you the last word but I will ignore you from this point on.
Aww, deflection rather than addressing my question, or earlier points. Well done you, you’ve outfoxed me!I'm going to give you the last word but I will ignore you from this point on.
I suppose I’ll just have to carry on in my blissful ignorance, while you, who knows the true secrets to life, stare into the void, horrified that we sheeple are sleepwalking into slavery and disaster and just can’t see the truth in front of us! Cursed like Cassandra, it must be truly terrible to be you.
Oh, hello Cassandra. Are you still here? I would have thought you’d have got bored and wondered off by now. Here’s why no one here is engaging with you seriously; you have put up a straw man outlining the way you believe the world works, which does not align with anyone else’s experience. You’re just some person from the internet, and thus have no credibility - made worse because your claims are so far from what the generally held beliefs are. If you could provide evidence (rather than just asserting that something is so) then you may get a different response, but it seems you cannot do this when challenged to do so. One link to how ownership is transferred in a different country is not evidence, by the way. The one making the extraordinary claims is the one who bears the burden of proof, after all...
However, I’ll answer your questions, in the context of your straw man, just to see where you’re going with this. I’m curious to find out what it is you’re selling - it’s either an idea or a service, but let’s go down the road and find out, eh? I don’t suppose I’ll buy it, but I’m at a loose end this morning.
1. Because this documentation is only required to first register a car.
2. The DVLA, presumably, in order to issue the car’s registration.
3. Because in the U.K. this document is not useful or relevant to the first owner of the car, or particularly useful once a car has been registered.
4. Clearly if someone else owns something, they can request it back from me at any point - my work laptop, for example. This is an unrelated question though - you’ve yet to establish that this MSO is required as proof of ownership beyond the first time a car is registered with the DVLA.
The government doesn’t not need to own something in order to confiscate it, as should be obvious - illegal drugs, for example, are often confiscated and destroyed. Are you asserting that the only way this can legally be done is if the government owns the drugs? Presumably not, but that’s the arguement you appear to be making.
Anyway - you’ve outlined what you believe is a problem (we don’t own our cars). What is your solution to this problem?
However, I’ll answer your questions, in the context of your straw man, just to see where you’re going with this. I’m curious to find out what it is you’re selling - it’s either an idea or a service, but let’s go down the road and find out, eh? I don’t suppose I’ll buy it, but I’m at a loose end this morning.
Zee Researcha said:
- why are you not getting the Manufacturers Statement of Origin with a Bill of Sale when you paid in full for it?
- Who is getting it?
- How can the dealer not pass it on to you, surely this is theft? (Unless you give the dealer the Power of Attorney by signing the Registration Form? Did you read the small print?
- What are the consequences if someone else owning it. (CLUE: They can dictate what you must do as Keeper and take it away from you).
So, taking your questions in order, without saying whether I believe you’re correct or not, the answers could equally be:- Who is getting it?
- How can the dealer not pass it on to you, surely this is theft? (Unless you give the dealer the Power of Attorney by signing the Registration Form? Did you read the small print?
- What are the consequences if someone else owning it. (CLUE: They can dictate what you must do as Keeper and take it away from you).
1. Because this documentation is only required to first register a car.
2. The DVLA, presumably, in order to issue the car’s registration.
3. Because in the U.K. this document is not useful or relevant to the first owner of the car, or particularly useful once a car has been registered.
4. Clearly if someone else owns something, they can request it back from me at any point - my work laptop, for example. This is an unrelated question though - you’ve yet to establish that this MSO is required as proof of ownership beyond the first time a car is registered with the DVLA.
The government doesn’t not need to own something in order to confiscate it, as should be obvious - illegal drugs, for example, are often confiscated and destroyed. Are you asserting that the only way this can legally be done is if the government owns the drugs? Presumably not, but that’s the arguement you appear to be making.
Anyway - you’ve outlined what you believe is a problem (we don’t own our cars). What is your solution to this problem?
Straw man - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Your assumption that me using the words “straw man” this is anything to do with legal identities rather than in its common usage as outlined in the wiki link above confirms you are indeed a FOTL type, and I’m out at this point. There is ignorance here, but it is not mine, and you are not worthy of the time required to debate you further.
I cannot be bothered to read and correct all that you have written above, but if we’re going to be nit picking, you said “You previously said a receipt (a record of transaction detailing what has been exchanged, when and who possesses what) is proof of ownership when the V5C document clearly says not so”. The V5C is not a receipt, and I have not ever claimed it is - it is a record of the registered keeper. A receipt is what the garage gives you to show you’ve paid for (and hence own) the car. The crushing of uninsured cars is not something that the government can do because they own the cars, it’s something enabled by legislation.
You should be well aware that no FOTL type argument has been successful in any court, anywhere, and that you are on a hiding to nothing.
Have a lovely life, you fruit basket.
Edit: iPhone typos
Your assumption that me using the words “straw man” this is anything to do with legal identities rather than in its common usage as outlined in the wiki link above confirms you are indeed a FOTL type, and I’m out at this point. There is ignorance here, but it is not mine, and you are not worthy of the time required to debate you further.
I cannot be bothered to read and correct all that you have written above, but if we’re going to be nit picking, you said “You previously said a receipt (a record of transaction detailing what has been exchanged, when and who possesses what) is proof of ownership when the V5C document clearly says not so”. The V5C is not a receipt, and I have not ever claimed it is - it is a record of the registered keeper. A receipt is what the garage gives you to show you’ve paid for (and hence own) the car. The crushing of uninsured cars is not something that the government can do because they own the cars, it’s something enabled by legislation.
You should be well aware that no FOTL type argument has been successful in any court, anywhere, and that you are on a hiding to nothing.
Have a lovely life, you fruit basket.
Edit: iPhone typos
Edited by DanL on Saturday 27th January 15:09
For anyone wondering what FOTL is;
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/14/the-legal-gib...
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abq...
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/14/the-legal-gib...
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abq...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff