Van turned out to be stolen?

[panchis]

Dear All... please help!!

 

I bought a van from a dealer and it turned out to have an owner, the first owner (the claimant) has filed a cliam at the courts claiming for the van back.

 

1. The claimant sold the van to Mr X for £xxxx, PAYMENT WAS MADE BY CREDIT CARD.

 

2. The claimant was informed by his bank that the genuine card holder was denying that the transaction took place.

 

3. At this point the matter was reported to the police by the claimant.

 

Summary: Someone bought the van from the claimant with a stolen credit card, the van then was sold to a car dealer and then i bought it.

 

The claimant wants his van... what can i do? Do i have any rights to this van?

 

Thanks for your responses.

[MARTIN3030]

Hmn a bit of a mess.

I think the thread needs moving from here given that its not quite a simple matter.

Has there been any involvement at all by the Police ?

[Bookworm]

Nope, the van is still rightfully the 1st chap's, and it's an absolute. You on the other hand have a rightful claim for your money back from the dealer, and he in turn is going to get buggered because his claim is against the thief who sold him his van, but that's not your problem.

[panchis]

The police stopedme and because all the papers were in order they let me keep the van and they refer to me as "the new owner".

 

The DC in charge of this case does expresed that this case is rare and have let the court to deal with it..

[panchis]

Thanks martin3030, you are right... this is such a mess and the police agrees on that.

 

where do you think it would be the right place for this thread?

[buzby]

The police stopedme and because all the papers were in order they let me keep the van and they refer to me as "the new owner".

 

Did they say that, or actually the 'New Keeper' - as only the courts can decide on this. If you are in Scotland, you have good title alreadt, so this shouldn;t be an issue. If in E&W, your claim would be against the garage that sold the van to you, if you are not accepted as having purchased in good faith and allowed to keep it.

 

At the end of the day, it should be a matter for the original owner's insurers, especially if they paid out on the claim.

[panchis]

Thanks Busby... the letter from the police reads as:

 

The vehicle is currently under dispute between yourself the new owner and the original looserMr XXXX. Both parties have issued rival claims to the vehicle above.

[haggis1984]

If the OP paid by credit card could he just do a s75 claim, get his money back and then give the van to the police to deal with?

[panchis]

If the OP paid by credit card could he just do a s75 claim, get his money back and then give the van to the police to deal with?

 

 

Haggis1984, what do you mean OP and s75 claim?

 

sorry but notso familiar with these terms

[haggis1984]

Sorry, I was making a suggestion to the other people offering you advice

 

OP = Original poster (you)

 

s75 claim = when you make a purchase over £100 on a credit card the bank takes joint liability if anything goes wrong. (section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act)

 

Did you pay by credit card?

[buzby]

Interesting. They appear to have valdated your claim as one of the rightful owners. Hang on to that letter, it could be useful!

[panchis]

Thanks Haggis ...I paid for the van partly by bank transfer partly cash, but the guy that bougth it from the first owner paid with a stolen card.

[haggis1984]

Thanks Haggis ...I paid for the van partly by bank transfer partly cash, but the guy that bougth it from the first owner paid with a stolen card.

 

No probs - s75 is gonna be irrelevant then.

 

Youre in safe hands here anyway - youve got both Buzby and Bookworm looking in. They're likely to disagree but youll get some good advice

[panchis]

Thanks Haggis

[Bookworm]

Buzby might disagree with me -again-, but he'll be mistaken - again -.

 

Last time this happened about a situation with a stolen vehicle ( a caravan in that instance), this is how it went:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/124277-question-soga-applied-private.html

 

As I said, the right for the original owner is absolute, no-one else has title to the vehicle. (one possible exception is if his insurance paid up in which they case they become the legal owners, but I suspect that may not be the case if the owner is pursuing in court.)

 

My advice is: give back the van, pay his court fees, make sure you get proof of it all and pursue the trader for a refund + the court fees incurred through no fault of your own. He had no right to sell you the van whether he knew it or not, and therefore has no right to the monies you gave him. It's actually not that complicated. ;-)

[mightymouse_69]

Removed by self.

[panchis]

Thanks to everyone for your coments.

 

As I wrote before, the police said that I'm the new owner of the van and then one of you wrote that the van is still a stolen vehicle, I decided, to run the HPI check on the van again.

 

And to my surpries, there is no record of registration being stolen & recoverd.

 

How is this possible????

[buzby]

EASY! The only people who can access this database are the finance houses, who register their 'interest' in a vehicle with BOTH the DVLA and the HPI database.

 

In the circumstances you outlined, there was no finance fraud (in the traditional sense) as the vehicle was not a consideration when the finance was arranged. So, you not seeing it listed has no real bearing.

 

HOWEVER, it does assist in your claim for ownership, as you had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the vehicle was clear of incumbrances, so hang on in there.

[panchis]

Buzby Thanks for your reply.

 

I forgot to write under which section I.m being sued. In the court claim is written as follow:

Particulars of claim

1., 2.,3.,....

 

6. It is averred that the Defendant does not have title to the vehicle as in accordance with section 21(1) Sale of goods Act 1979 as amended and the Court of Appeal decision of Shogun Finance Limited v Hudson (2004) 1 All ER 215.

 

And today someone send me this link, http://www.publications.parliament.u...9/shogun-1.htm which I tried to read it my self. And the truth is that I don't understand most of it. Can someone explain in plain english what that means. Is there any hope for me.

 

And I forgot to mention that, that the van belongs to my business not to me. But they suing me,hmm...................

[mightymouse_69]

RE: Shogun Finance

 

A dealer agreed a price for the sale of a motor vehicle on hire-purchase to a fraudster who produced a stolen driving licence as proof of his identity. The dealer faxed to the claimant hire-purchase company a copy of the licence and a draft hire-purchase agreement that the fraudster had signed, forging the signature on the licence. Having completed a satisfactory credit check of the person named on the licence the claimant approved the sale. The fraudster paid the agreed 10% deposit to the dealer partly in cash and partly by way of a cheque, which was subsequently dishonoured, and was allowed to take the vehicle. The defendant purchased it in good faith from the fraudster the following day. On the claimant's action against the defendant for, inter alia, damages for conversion the defendant counterclaimed that he had acquired good title to the vehicle within the meaning of section 27 of the Hire-Purchase Act 1964.

 

In short terms:

 

A buys the car on hire purchase pretending to be someone else. A then sells the car to B, who goes on thinking he has bought a perfectly legit car. However, the finance company (who are the owners of the car) want it back since A has now done a runner.

 

The question was - who can keep the car? B or the finance company?

 

It was held to be the finance company.

[buzby]

On your last point... is your business incorporated? (Multiple (limited) partnership, Limited Company) etc ? If so, the action against you is incompetent.

 

If you simply use the van for your own 'business purposes', then suing you in your own name would be permissible. So, assuming the former situation, you (personally) have no case to answer and should return the documentation to the court explaining that you are not the owner.

 

If the pursuer cannot case the correct defender, that's their look out.

[wheresmyhairgone]

Buzby

Lets not forget that the original owner is out off pocket too, the van was stolen!!!!!!

 

Buzby might disagree with me -again-, but he'll be mistaken - again -.

 

Last time this happened about a situation with a stolen vehicle ( a caravan in that instance), this is how it went:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/124277-question-soga-applied-private.html

 

As I said, the right for the original owner is absolute, no-one else has title to the vehicle. (one possible exception is if his insurance paid up in which they case they become the legal owners, but I suspect that may not be the case if the owner is pursuing in court.)

 

My advice is: give back the van, pay his court fees, make sure you get proof of it all and pursue the trader for a refund + the court fees incurred through no fault of your own. He had no right to sell you the van whether he knew it or not, and therefore has no right to the monies you gave him. It's actually not that complicated. ;-)

 

and i suggest this is the correct action to take

[buzby]

The original owner will have been insured, and in all likelyhood has recieved a settlement from his insurers. As such any recovery action would be by the insurers, not the original 'owner'.

 

However, the OP still may have mucho breathing space if, as a Ltd company he is being pursued as an individual. The action would be incompetent - and it must be said, if he lived in Scotland, irrelevant as we would already have good title under Scottish law (having purchased in good faith).

[wheresmyhairgone]

The original owner will have been insured, and in all likelyhood has recieved a settlement from his insurers. As such any recovery action would be by the insurers, not the original 'owner'.

 

However, the OP still may have mucho breathing space if, as a Ltd company he is being pursued as an individual. The action would be incompetent - and it must be said, if he lived in Scotland, irrelevant as we would already have good title under Scottish law (having purchased in good faith).

 

 

Seeing as he is trying to get the van back, one would have to assume that:

 

A) He has not received any insurance settlement or

 

B) He is very stupid

 

 

I for one will assume its A until otherwise corrected

[buzby]

No insurance? Hmm - the police might be interest in that too you know...