Would You Have Heard Of Mada Pasa
News1 min ago
No best answer has yet been selected by judgedread. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Some 'friend'!!!
The law states that if an 'innocent' purchaser buys the car in good faith, they will have title to the vehicle. (Somehting I disagree with). However, since you know him, you may not be classed as an innocent purchaser, and the finance company may have grounds to suspect that you are involved in fraud.
Does your receipt say anything about the car being clear of finance etc?
Is �12,000 a fair price for the car.....and can you prove by any other means that this is how much you paid.....eg a bank statement showing a withdrawel of that amount at the time?
If you don't mind me asking, how old are you, is this the most expensive car you have ever bought, and have you ever bought privately before?
Okay, I work in the finance industry - the majority of my work is hp and leasing vehicles. As I stated earlier, if you are indeed an 'innocent' purchaser, the law is on your side - ie you will not have to give the vehicle back.
If you answer my above questions, I can give you my opinion as to whether you would be classed (in my mind) as an innocent purchaser.
I would suggest that in Jules001's case, either the client was not an innocent purchaser or the law firm was cr@p.
try typing "innocent purchaser" and "hire purchase" into google, and you will understand what I mean, or follow his link:
http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/corporate/FAQDb.nsf/By+De partment/DC9AB9B464DF37DF80256DE2005F50CD
First of all, as I said I work in the finance industry. I have had experience of this type of deal several times.
Secondly, I hate being called wrong from someone who obviously has no idea! Read the Hire Purchase Act and then feel free to comment!
Thirdly, if you do not beleive my above information, maybe you will beleive Oxfordshie Trading Standards - or maybe they are wrong as well - we all bow to Sludge's superior information!
http://www.oxon-tss.org.uk/templates/rights/answer.cfm/3/84
Sludge - I suggest if you have no clue about Hire Purchase regulations, you do not bother talking about it!
Everyone buying a car privately for use on public roads takes on a general duty of care to ensure that the title is clear in order that it can be properly insured and run legally. In this case Jud recklessly and knowingly admits to not doing so. There may be 2 reasons (1) greed - Jud may have been offered a vehicle obviously worth �20,000 for �12,000 and decided to take a chance and has now come unstuck, or (2) swindle - perhaps the receipt that Jud admits to having is false and he and his friend together embarked upon a plan to steal from the HP company and it is this that has come unstuck. Either way he is hoping that someone on Answerbank will come up with a wheeze to save him.
The vehicle belongs to the HP company, and Jud may ultimately think himself fortunate if he does not end up as a guest of Her Majesty.
Sludge -" everyone buying a car has a general duty of care....." - really - where is this written down? Obviously an act of parliament that missed me by.....or is this something you have just made up?
"Jud recklessly and knowingly admits not doing so"......okay, try reading the question again.....the only remark Jud makes is "i know now......" - this to me means he/she now knows......ie didn't know at the time....
So apparently - you think he/she is guilty when not knowing any of the truth of the matter - look at my first answer - I have tried to ask the questions that are relevant and can then give a full opinion - I have reposted since as prats like yourself have insisted on giving false / misleading information.
You have said in a previous answer to a question that you are a "specialist in UK and International Contract and Land Law" - If you make snap judgements about a case and think someone is guilty when they ask a valid question, I not only question your ethics, I question as to whether or not you are in fact qualified!
First of all you need to find out if it was indeed a HP agreement. If it were a lease or contract hire or similar (and it would still be registered on HPI) this is not the same thing and you would have no protection under the Hire Purchase Act.
Personally, I think that at 52, you may be a bit naive to have not done an HPI check, but that is easy for me to say being in the industry. As Hgrove suggests, the courts (if it gets there) will be sensible enough to realise if you were part of a conspiracy to commit fraud (just hope to God you don't have someone like Sludge as a judge).
Bear in mind that some companies will also register loans with HPI despite the fact that they have no interest in the vehicle - it is there purely as an attempt to try and stop this sort of thing happening.
On the basis that you are not trying to commit fraud, the car was financed on a HP agreement, you paid a 'fair' price for the vehicle etc, I would feel that you have a fair chance of being classed as an 'innocent puchaser'.
You really do need to at the very least go to your local Citizens Advice Bureau, and preferably go to a solicitor. Do not give up the car. If repossession agents turn up, they will need court papers to serve on you. Do not give them keys etc. Call the police if needs be. Unless their paperwork is in order, they cannot get police support.
The argument about theft would be invalid Hgrove - the only potential way (And I use as my source CCTA magazines - Consumer Credit Trade Association) is if the vehicle was financed illegally - eg by id theft. I forget the case details but it was in the middle of last year.
Hope this helps
Oh hum. Sludge again. How tedious. There is no obligation to run an ownership check on a car before purchasing it. None. It may be naive not to do one, but that's as far as it goes. (It is also a money spinner for the AA.) If irrational behaviour were a crime we would have got rid of Sludge by now. A driver owes a general duty of care to other road users not to run them over, that's all. By the way... Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sec. 12 provides that in a contract for sale there is an implied term that the seller has the right (title) to sell the goods...
Oneeydvic, what I wrote about the situation if the car were stolen was based on the following paragraph which was in the Oxfordshire Trading Standards website: "stolen cars (in common with other stolen goods) will always remain the property of the person from whom they were stolen. If you are unfortunate enough to buy a stolen car, then the original owner will be entitled to have it back."
Sorry Hgrove - you are correct - in the case of stolen goods apply the Nameo Dat rule - however a finance company cannot claim it is stolen if the vehicle is on HP and subsequantly sold.
What I was referring to is that due to a court ruling last year, if the HP agreement was taken out fraudulently, the HP agreement is invalid and the new purchaser has no protection under the Hire Purchase Act. The finance company can reclaim the vehicle and the consumer is left out of pocket.
Interestingly, I asked a very good friend of mine last night (age 54) if she would have done an HPI check - she said no she wouldn't have........... Murdering b1tch!
The law is generally a ass, I can't say I agree with these laws (as stated in my first post) - I really think that HPI should be a free service and people should check these out first. But then I also don't think people should be able to get a loan to buy a car - just HP.
HP is a minefield - you have 1/2 and 1/3 rules, (which refer to handing the car back and when you can repossess the car). Pro Forma invoices do not pass title. Lots of regulations and a complete nightmare.