Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Can my spouse sell my car if I am the registered keeper?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2485 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I've been in a difficult marriage for 26 years. I want to sell / trade in my car for a newer model but my husband is refusing to let me saying I'm not allowed because its his car. I am the registered keeper & I have always paid for tax, insurance and any repairs & upkeep. Would it be against the law for me to trade in the car without his consent? When we bought the car, he paid for it (& he says he can prove this), I sold my old car and wanted to give him all the money I got for it to pay for the new one. He refused to accept it, telling me to put the money in my bank account. This was 2 years ago. I feel trapped. He says if I want a new car of my own then I have to go and buy one but I should just give him the one I presently have because he says its all his. I'm concerned that he's going to be awkward and sell my car even though I'm the registered keeper. Can he do this? Sorry - I know there's a few questions here but I fell very intimidated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If youre the registered keeper and you have the documents, then you can. Also remember though that the RK is not necessarily the owner in the eyes of the law. But if it is your car, then theres nothing he can do.

 

Makes no odds who paid for it.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If youre the registered keeper and you have the documents, then you can. Also remember though that the RK is not necessarily the owner in the eyes of the law. But if it is your car, then theres nothing he can do.

 

Makes no odds who paid for it.

Are you sure that`s right? As I understand it the legal owner is the only one who can sell it. The keeper is responsible for it but you can`t sell something you don`t legally own.

Edited by inthesticks
error
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice. However I would have thought that the car is a marital asset jointly owned. How do you determine and prove a legal owner? Would this be based purely from a bank receipt of payment from an individual's account? or could I make a claim on ownership as I have paid for upkeep, parts, tax & running costs etc? I think this is where I may me on a 'sticky wicket'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's name is on the receipt???

 

That's part of my problem. I don't have a receipt and I can't find one. He might have something but he hides documents so I'm not sure where one might be. We keep documents in a filing cabinet in our study and there's nothing in the car folder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's part of my problem. I don't have a receipt and I can't find one. He might have something but he hides documents so I'm not sure where one might be. We keep documents in a filing cabinet in our study and there's nothing in the car folder.

 

Sell the car if you want to, as you are the registered keeper, so he allowed you to do as you wish with the car. There is no other legal document showing your husband says you can't sell it.

 

There is not much he can do about it. He is hardly likely to seek a court injunction or sue you for the money and a court would probably not be interested. This is essentially a private dispute between a married couple.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's part of my problem. I don't have a receipt and I can't find one. He might have something but he hides documents so I'm not sure where one might be. We keep documents in a filing cabinet in our study and there's nothing in the car folder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would it not be possible to contact seller and get copy of receipt ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

you insure it, tax it, your name is on the V5 so regardless of him paying for it any snesible commentator would say that it is yours to dispose of as you wish.

I bought my wife's car, I tax it, insure it etc but it is hers and that is not just because either of us would just wish it that way but because how it has been treated all of this time by ourselves and in the eyes of others. It has been gifted, simple as that. He refused the money from your old one so he is basically gifting you the advantage of the newer car by paying for it without strings at the time. Wanting to be awkward now wont impress anyone. However, if he sells it before you get a chance to aprt exchange it would you seriously sue him for the loss? Keep the V5 somewhere where he cant get hold of it so if he does flog it the deal may be reversible

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sorry EB you are wrong on this and I have personal experience. An ex Mrs Homer was gifted a brand new car and less than a year later decide to up sticks with a former boyfriend and took the car with her.

 

I contacted the garage I bought the car from and asked them to send me a copy of the receipt (in my name) which the duly did.

 

A day later I get a call from the garage saying that my ex had been in and sold the car back to them and was there going to be a problem.

 

I replied yes, she wasn't the owner of the car and immediately emailed the Principle Salesman and informed him that he was not permitted to sell the car or pay any money to the ex Mrs Homer.

 

Salesman had to comply, ex Mrs Homer went mental (which was funny) car remained at garage for 6 months while letters were sent to her from my solicitor telling her to return the V5 (which was in her name) and eventually I got the car back with the V5, registered it in my name, sold it and the private plate and she got nothing.

 

So the moral of this story is that the V5 has nothing to do with ownership and is trumped by a sales receipt, who insures the car and buys the VED is not relevant either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry EB you are wrong on this and I have personal experience. An ex Mrs Homer was gifted a brand new car

 

Was this an outright gift, or were conditions applied?

 

If it was an outright gift, whose name is on the receipt becomes irrelevant once the gift is perfected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry EB you are wrong on this and I have personal experience. An ex Mrs Homer was gifted a brand new car and less than a year later decide to up sticks with a former boyfriend and took the car with her.

 

I contacted the garage I bought the car from and asked them to send me a copy of the receipt (in my name) which the duly did.

 

A day later I get a call from the garage saying that my ex had been in and sold the car back to them and was there going to be a problem.

 

I replied yes, she wasn't the owner of the car and immediately emailed the Principle Salesman and informed him that he was not permitted to sell the car or pay any money to the ex Mrs Homer.

 

Salesman had to comply, ex Mrs Homer went mental (which was funny) car remained at garage for 6 months while letters were sent to her from my solicitor telling her to return the V5 (which was in her name) and eventually I got the car back with the V5, registered it in my name, sold it and the private plate and she got nothing.

 

So the moral of this story is that the V5 has nothing to do with ownership and is trumped by a sales receipt, who insures the car and buys the VED is not relevant either.

 

Did it ever get to court to decide who owned the car ?

 

The fact it took 6 months suggests that in the end your ex decided not to continue saying they owned the car.

 

You would have been in a different position had your ex stated in court that you gifted the car to them. Then it would have been up to a Judge to decide who they believed.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was an outright gift but to presume she could leave with a car a few months later is unreasonable as I expected that I would have use of the vehicle as well and said as much when it was gifted. Hence the insurance (which I paid for) was for both of us to drive the vehicle.

 

It did get to court but other side didn't show.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was an outright gift but to presume she could leave with a car a few months later is unreasonable as I expected that I would have use of the vehicle as well and said as much when it was gifted.

 

If you "said as much when it was gifted", then it was a conditional gift, not outright .......

 

Hence the insurance (which I paid for) was for both of us to drive the vehicle.

 

It did get to court but other side didn't show.

 

If the other side didn't show then your presentation of your view of the facts is more likely to be believed.

 

You would have been in a different position had your ex stated in court that you gifted the car to them. Then it would have been up to a Judge to decide who they believed.

 

Precisely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no such thing as a marital asset since the law on matrimony was changed about 150 years ago.

Thanks for the advice. However I would have thought that the car is a marital asset jointly owned. How do you determine and prove a legal owner? Would this be based purely from a bank receipt of payment from an individual's account? or could I make a claim on ownership as I have paid for upkeep, parts, tax & running costs etc? I think this is where I may me on a 'sticky wicket'?
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

What was the law changed to then?

I contacted the police forum 'Ask the police' and the following was their reply:

 

Thank you for your email.

Whether a person is the owner of a vehicle is a question of fact for a court to decide. Relevant facts are the way the person treats/uses the vehicle, whether they have insurance for it and whether they have spent money on its purchase/upkeep etc. In the case of a car used by a married couple, ownership of any property is usually classed as joint.

 

If there is a dispute in relation to the sale of a vehicle, we would suggest you seek legal advice either from a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) via the links below:[/b][/i][/i]

 

 

I actually came into the relationship with a car and at no point did I 'give up' having a car, or give away my car for free. We just bought & sold cars throughout the years having one car each regardless of whose name it was in. I think I'm entitled to a car...surley? having never stopping having one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, you don't ''own'' a car anyway, you are the registered keeper, I'm the RK for the car in our household, but I never bought it, the missus bought it, but I keep it....AS a registered keeper. I can't even drive!

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, you don't ''own'' a car anyway, you are the registered keeper, I'm the RK for the car in our household, but I never bought it, the missus bought it, but I keep it....AS a registered keeper. I can't even drive!

 

 

It isn't correct to say "you don't own a car anyway".

Someone owns the car.That may be one person or shared ownership.

 

Ownership and Registered Keeper aren't synonymous. They often coincide but don't have to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't correct to say "you don't own a car anyway".

Someone owns the car.That may be one person or shared ownership.

 

Ownership and Registered Keeper aren't synonymous. They often coincide but don't have to.

 

 

I've registered it, I'm only the keeper, NOT the owner.

 

Absolutely . Yet the car still has an owner: just not you.

 

For the OP ; who the Registered keeper is may help identify the owner but one doesn't imply the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what law changed? the law that said all assets of a marriage belong to the husband. So, you have assets, hubby has assets and you can have joint assets such as house and contents, according to the type of tenancy and the obvious statement of beneficial interest and this has nothing to do with marriage, it could be between anyone.

Now ownership of an individual item are difficult to prove, I bought my wife a new watch and as I gifted it to her it is hers. I may have the receipt for it but I dont own it. With your car you have ownership but you also have a husband who to all appearinces is a s**t so when he "gifted" you the car that wasnt the end of it as far as he sees it. Your question was can he sell it and the answer really was no unless you let him. The problem lies not with the laws on ownership but your relationship with him and nothing we say will change that, only you can. You can continue to ask about ownership but that isnt really the issue.

Sell the car yourself and keep the money in a separate bank account if you think that the ownership of this vehicle will precipitate some action by him

What was the law changed to then?

I contacted the police forum 'Ask the police' and the following was their reply:

 

Thank you for your email.

Whether a person is the owner of a vehicle is a question of fact for a court to decide. Relevant facts are the way the person treats/uses the vehicle, whether they have insurance for it and whether they have spent money on its purchase/upkeep etc. In the case of a car used by a married couple, ownership of any property is usually classed as joint.

 

If there is a dispute in relation to the sale of a vehicle, we would suggest you seek legal advice either from a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) via the links below:[/b][/i][/i]

 

 

I actually came into the relationship with a car and at no point did I 'give up' having a car, or give away my car for free. We just bought & sold cars throughout the years having one car each regardless of whose name it was in. I think I'm entitled to a car...surley? having never stopping having one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...