Who owns the car?
25 June 2014, 02:05 PM
#4
If it was purchased on finance then until the finance is paid off the finance company still own the car. That's why it's illegal to sell a car with outstanding finance. Your're effectively selling someone elses property!
Whoever stumps up the cash to pay the seller owns the car. Not always the registered keeper.
Whoever stumps up the cash to pay the seller owns the car. Not always the registered keeper.
25 June 2014, 02:59 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
A Lease Hire is where you dont own the car until the term is up.
25 June 2014, 03:29 PM
#7
I very nearly purchased a car with outstanding finance on it. Did a text check and another HPI check that came up with no issues, night before I was to swap cars and give the guy thousands of my hard earned cash I did an official HPI check on it which showed outstanding finance. Needless to say I pulled out of the deal as the owner wouldn't tell me how much was left.
The car was later sold to someone else who I contacted after I realised it had been sold. He had no idea but rang the finaice company who confirmed he was not the legal owner of his new car and was actually liable for the outstanding finance. He then had to go to court to try and prove to the finance company that he had paid sufficient money during purchase (trade in valuation of old car & cash put into deal) to justify that he should own the car. It was a lengthy process and the finance company eventually agreed to write off any debt & entitlement they had on the vehicle and sign over ownership to him (the registered keeper).
The **** who sold the car originally got away with a nice trade in car plus cash and never paid the finance back. He made some serious profit on that car!
The car was later sold to someone else who I contacted after I realised it had been sold. He had no idea but rang the finaice company who confirmed he was not the legal owner of his new car and was actually liable for the outstanding finance. He then had to go to court to try and prove to the finance company that he had paid sufficient money during purchase (trade in valuation of old car & cash put into deal) to justify that he should own the car. It was a lengthy process and the finance company eventually agreed to write off any debt & entitlement they had on the vehicle and sign over ownership to him (the registered keeper).
The **** who sold the car originally got away with a nice trade in car plus cash and never paid the finance back. He made some serious profit on that car!
Trending Topics
25 June 2014, 06:40 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Filling up with V Power somewhere in South Wales
Posts: 1,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This ^^^ It states it at the top of the V5, so if there's no finance owed on a car I would of thought whoevers name and address is on the receipt is the owner of the car?? But then you could argue that who's money was the car bought with??
Last edited by Peter Pan; 25 June 2014 at 06:48 PM.
25 June 2014, 11:22 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought I'd allow a bit of time for debate etc.
Well, according to a recent Court judgement the Registered Keeper is the proper owner.
Here's the story:
Man buys car (has invoice in his name) but wife becomes the RK.
Car breaks down and is taken to main dealership for repairs under warranty (which was taken out in wife's name).
Unfortunately there's problems and the matter ends up in the small claims court, with husband claiming against the dealership. (he also dealt with them during the repair period etc.)
The dealership's solicitors claim that the appropriate person to claim was the wife, since her name's on the V5. He asserts not, since he, as the owner, has suffered loss. (He's a named driver on the policy). He provides the invoice as evidence and also a statement from his wife that they had an arrangement re. the car ie.he also has use of the car, pays major bills and that the car is his.
The court threw the claim out, primarily on the basis that the appropriate person to claim damages was the wife ie. the RK.
The reason I've posted this is to make people aware of this eye-opening judgement.
Apart from the obvious 'car's in the son's name' scenario in theory someone selling a car could be regarded as still the legal owner until VOSA actually register the new one.
Also of course be wary when you have to get work done or make a claim.
Most (99.9%?) of the time there won't be a problem but hopefully this twist, where in addition to the saying that possession is 9/10 of the law a court adds that being the RK is the other 10%, won't catch anyone out.
In instances such as this make sure that the RK appoints the owner as their agent. Then you are acting on their behalf. (Just make sure any claim is in their name).
Well, according to a recent Court judgement the Registered Keeper is the proper owner.
Here's the story:
Man buys car (has invoice in his name) but wife becomes the RK.
Car breaks down and is taken to main dealership for repairs under warranty (which was taken out in wife's name).
Unfortunately there's problems and the matter ends up in the small claims court, with husband claiming against the dealership. (he also dealt with them during the repair period etc.)
The dealership's solicitors claim that the appropriate person to claim was the wife, since her name's on the V5. He asserts not, since he, as the owner, has suffered loss. (He's a named driver on the policy). He provides the invoice as evidence and also a statement from his wife that they had an arrangement re. the car ie.he also has use of the car, pays major bills and that the car is his.
The court threw the claim out, primarily on the basis that the appropriate person to claim damages was the wife ie. the RK.
The reason I've posted this is to make people aware of this eye-opening judgement.
Apart from the obvious 'car's in the son's name' scenario in theory someone selling a car could be regarded as still the legal owner until VOSA actually register the new one.
Also of course be wary when you have to get work done or make a claim.
Most (99.9%?) of the time there won't be a problem but hopefully this twist, where in addition to the saying that possession is 9/10 of the law a court adds that being the RK is the other 10%, won't catch anyone out.
In instances such as this make sure that the RK appoints the owner as their agent. Then you are acting on their behalf. (Just make sure any claim is in their name).
Last edited by LuckyWelshchap; 25 June 2014 at 11:23 PM. Reason: tpyo
26 June 2014, 12:58 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite the husband (who had dealt with the whole matter) having the invoice to prove he was the owner the court still said that she should have made the claim.
The actual words of the Judgement were "The claimant by his own admission is not the registered keeper of the vehicle or owner of the warranty relied on to fund repairs to the vehicle. That being the case he has no right to claim". (That is verbatim).
In other words, despite being the actual owner, the person who would suffer as the result of, say, a devaluing of the car, loss of use, wasted VED etc. he was not entitled to claim.
Although in theory his wife can claim she never dealt with the garage/main dealer and he never dealt with them as her representative, so in effect she's never actually complained to them about 'her' car.
As I've said, if you do have circumstances like these ie. a different RK to owner be careful if things go wrong.
A reasonable concern is what if a warranty and V5 are in different names?
26 June 2014, 01:34 PM
#16
How about this one, TAX is due end of this month. If you renew online before the 30/6 you get 14 days grace period to show the old TAX disc, until the new one turns up.
So if you sell the car before the 30/6 to a trader, but aren't intending to renew the TAX, do you have to make it SORN until the car/V5 is transferred to the trader? I ask as transferring the V5 by the DVLA usually takes some time, so until its completed the liability for anything to do with the car, including renewing the TAX is still mine.
So if you sell the car before the 30/6 to a trader, but aren't intending to renew the TAX, do you have to make it SORN until the car/V5 is transferred to the trader? I ask as transferring the V5 by the DVLA usually takes some time, so until its completed the liability for anything to do with the car, including renewing the TAX is still mine.
26 June 2014, 01:49 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not just that, they used the fact that she was on the V5 as the RK and backed it up with the warranty being in her name.
Despite the husband (who had dealt with the whole matter) having the invoice to prove he was the owner the court still said that she should have made the claim.
The actual words of the Judgement were "The claimant by his own admission is not the registered keeper of the vehicle or owner of the warranty relied on to fund repairs to the vehicle. That being the case he has no right to claim". (That is verbatim).
In other words, despite being the actual owner, the person who would suffer as the result of, say, a devaluing of the car, loss of use, wasted VED etc. he was not entitled to claim.
Although in theory his wife can claim she never dealt with the garage/main dealer and he never dealt with them as her representative, so in effect she's never actually complained to them about 'her' car.
As I've said, if you do have circumstances like these ie. a different RK to owner be careful if things go wrong.
A reasonable concern is what if a warranty and V5 are in different names?
Despite the husband (who had dealt with the whole matter) having the invoice to prove he was the owner the court still said that she should have made the claim.
The actual words of the Judgement were "The claimant by his own admission is not the registered keeper of the vehicle or owner of the warranty relied on to fund repairs to the vehicle. That being the case he has no right to claim". (That is verbatim).
In other words, despite being the actual owner, the person who would suffer as the result of, say, a devaluing of the car, loss of use, wasted VED etc. he was not entitled to claim.
Although in theory his wife can claim she never dealt with the garage/main dealer and he never dealt with them as her representative, so in effect she's never actually complained to them about 'her' car.
As I've said, if you do have circumstances like these ie. a different RK to owner be careful if things go wrong.
A reasonable concern is what if a warranty and V5 are in different names?
26 June 2014, 01:57 PM
#21
How about this one, TAX is due end of this month. If you renew online before the 30/6 you get 14 days grace period to show the old TAX disc, until the new one turns up.
So if you sell the car before the 30/6 to a trader, but aren't intending to renew the TAX, do you have to make it SORN until the car/V5 is transferred to the trader? I ask as transferring the V5 by the DVLA usually takes some time, so until its completed the liability for anything to do with the car, including renewing the TAX is still mine.
So if you sell the car before the 30/6 to a trader, but aren't intending to renew the TAX, do you have to make it SORN until the car/V5 is transferred to the trader? I ask as transferring the V5 by the DVLA usually takes some time, so until its completed the liability for anything to do with the car, including renewing the TAX is still mine.
http://www.theaa.com/newsroom/news-2...-transfer.html
26 June 2014, 02:12 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: I'll check my gps
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After 1st of Oct, this all changes?
http://www.theaa.com/newsroom/news-2...-transfer.html
http://www.theaa.com/newsroom/news-2...-transfer.html
That gives you something to think about when buying a car. There will be an extra cost involved when purchasing a car in a higher level of tax or if you currently don't have a taxed vehicle to exchange details with or a second car.
26 June 2014, 02:30 PM
#24
DVLA forgot to send me a re-tax reminder once and it got to 28 days past the end of the tax before I realised. I contacted the DVLA a little worried I was going to get fined but they said it was fine so long as I purchased tax before the month was out. Was easily sorted thankfully. They also said they are under no obligation to send reminders and should never be relied upon to remember to tax your car. Little swines!
26 June 2014, 02:40 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Thought I'd allow a bit of time for debate etc.
Well, according to a recent Court judgement the Registered Keeper is the proper owner.
Here's the story:
Man buys car (has invoice in his name) but wife becomes the RK.
Car breaks down and is taken to main dealership for repairs under warranty (which was taken out in wife's name).
Unfortunately there's problems and the matter ends up in the small claims court, with husband claiming against the dealership. (he also dealt with them during the repair period etc.)
The dealership's solicitors claim that the appropriate person to claim was the wife, since her name's on the V5. He asserts not, since he, as the owner, has suffered loss. (He's a named driver on the policy). He provides the invoice as evidence and also a statement from his wife that they had an arrangement re. the car ie.he also has use of the car, pays major bills and that the car is his.
The court threw the claim out, primarily on the basis that the appropriate person to claim damages was the wife ie. the RK.
The reason I've posted this is to make people aware of this eye-opening judgement.
Apart from the obvious 'car's in the son's name' scenario in theory someone selling a car could be regarded as still the legal owner until VOSA actually register the new one.
Also of course be wary when you have to get work done or make a claim.
Most (99.9%?) of the time there won't be a problem but hopefully this twist, where in addition to the saying that possession is 9/10 of the law a court adds that being the RK is the other 10%, won't catch anyone out.
In instances such as this make sure that the RK appoints the owner as their agent. Then you are acting on their behalf. (Just make sure any claim is in their name).
Well, according to a recent Court judgement the Registered Keeper is the proper owner.
Here's the story:
Man buys car (has invoice in his name) but wife becomes the RK.
Car breaks down and is taken to main dealership for repairs under warranty (which was taken out in wife's name).
Unfortunately there's problems and the matter ends up in the small claims court, with husband claiming against the dealership. (he also dealt with them during the repair period etc.)
The dealership's solicitors claim that the appropriate person to claim was the wife, since her name's on the V5. He asserts not, since he, as the owner, has suffered loss. (He's a named driver on the policy). He provides the invoice as evidence and also a statement from his wife that they had an arrangement re. the car ie.he also has use of the car, pays major bills and that the car is his.
The court threw the claim out, primarily on the basis that the appropriate person to claim damages was the wife ie. the RK.
The reason I've posted this is to make people aware of this eye-opening judgement.
Apart from the obvious 'car's in the son's name' scenario in theory someone selling a car could be regarded as still the legal owner until VOSA actually register the new one.
Also of course be wary when you have to get work done or make a claim.
Most (99.9%?) of the time there won't be a problem but hopefully this twist, where in addition to the saying that possession is 9/10 of the law a court adds that being the RK is the other 10%, won't catch anyone out.
In instances such as this make sure that the RK appoints the owner as their agent. Then you are acting on their behalf. (Just make sure any claim is in their name).
26 June 2014, 02:46 PM
#27
Was going to say that you'll have signed proof that you sold & transferred the car on the signed date, but as it's the seller that sends off the logbook & the new owner that retains the signed slip that won't be the case. All you will have is a photocopy of the signed logbook if you are able to get one and that may not be accepted as proof of sale. difficult one.
Yep chopped it in for the new Sti
Last edited by bioforger; 26 June 2014 at 02:51 PM.
27 June 2014, 12:49 AM
#30
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The car needed repairs under that, not the warranty period after the sale.
The court case was nothing to do with warranty, that company did its job well.
The car was not repaired at the original dealers either.
An example is this:
Buy a car from a trader in, say, the Midlands. You live in, say, Somerset.
Car runs ok, warranty period expires. Purchase warranty from a specialist company.
Car breaks down, take it to a local main dealer. Warranty company ok the work.
Unfortunately the main dealer's approach is poor, leaving a number of issues.
The court said that the person who bought the car (who we would call 'the owner') couldn't claim because the RK should, and used 'ownership' of the warranty to back it up.
A very dodgy area.
This possibly means that if someone buys a car for eg. their son or daughter and naturally make them the RK the warranty - or at least any court claim resulting from it - could be invalid.
As I've said though, it's unusual circumstances, just be careful if they fit you.