legal ownership of cars

[nickpfc63]

Hi All. I have a car at my garage that failed its MOT 2yrs ago. The lady that owned it didnt want it fixed and verbally gave me the car to scrap. Its now been with me for the whole 2yrs. I,ve since repaired it and got the MOT so as to sell it. She,s found out and is demanding the car back but is refusing to pay for it. I never got the log book as she had lost it. Anybody know where i stand. Many thanks.

[nickpfc63]

Nope!!

[tamborine]

Yes.....my OH dealt in them for 30y & always insisted on log book or a waiver so theft accusations cannot be effected.

[jackthehat]

It is difficult to comment when we are being drip-fed the details of the situation............

It is still HER car.

Go and speak to a solicitor taking all written evidence with you; including your T&C, receipts for parts and any correspondence.

[tamborine]

If she claims the car she has to pay for repairs. All garages demand payment for repairs before car is removed or instigate legal charges of unpaid costs.

2y work will be some charge.

[tamborine]

I think you should give her 7days notice to settle repair account (cost of new purchase) or you sell car to recover your outlay. Scrap cars are £30approx - her entitlement.

[jackthehat]

Not technically, doc. It IS her car.
At some point, nickpfc63, decided to do the car up. He ought to have informed the owner before he touched it..........
If she, owing no monies, believed that the car had been scrapped (after instructing so) on a particular date(ish); I find it difficult to believe that any court in the land will grant the OP any sort of retrospective storage costs. There was no contract to that effect.
It may be covered in OPs T&C in which case he needs to see a solicitor to have a formal letter to that effect sent.

Until, such a time as the owner relinquishes said ownership..........it is HER car !! Ownership can only be assumed in a particular manner after fulfillment of a particular set of conditions.................this ain't one of those situations !

[jackthehat]

The OP hasn't been forthcoming with the fine detail of who said what and when.
I agree that any works carried out 'under instruction' must be paid for. However, reading the first post it appears that he took it upon himself to carry out 'additional' works with the intention of selling the vehicle...........without the knowledge or consent of the owner. He assumed that the vehicle had been 'abandoned' (not so, it should have been destroyed). The fact that in the intervening period he has had further communication with the owner was mentioned later.
His further works to the car have certainly muddied the waters about who is legally responsible for what, and he's probably shot himself in the foot............

[socket2008]

Not sure why all the beating around the bush on this one. It's her car.

Even if you refurbish it to showroom condition, you couldn't say it was your car because you wouldn't have the log book. Any attempt to put it in your name without a receipt could be regarded as fraud.

If you have receipts of all the work you have done on the car you could claim she had asked you to fix it but hasn't paid up. I think you would have more chance of winning that in a small claims court than a he said she said argument over verbal ownership.