Mobile Money (the Police claim it's a Civil matter) !!!

[dadofholly]

A limited company has the same status as a person.

 

(sorry tfd just realised you had already pointed this out).

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

They took the vehicle in the full knowledge that it was not theirs to take - and for their own financial advantage - that is there motive - and that is theft. Whats wih all this dishonesty nonsense - they have acted dishonestly.

 

Well evidently they think the OP is involved, presumably they think the OP and brother in law connived to [problem] them with the brother in law being the fall guy with a sham conviction based on his confession. It wouldn't be the first time such a scheme has been cooked up. However unlikely, that eliminates dishonesty and therefore any theft. The conviction is not binding on MM and is not a finding of fact which they cannot argue with.

 

To the OP - when is the return date for your injunction proceedings? Were MM ordered to file a witness statement or anything in response? It would be interesting to know why even now they refuse to return the vehicle.

[dadofholly]

They have been provided evidence that the OP was not involved - they know the OP was not involved - the OP was a witness for the prosecution - what more evidence can they need?

 

What they 'think' is not relevant to the law.

[seanamarts]

assumption can be a very dangerous thing

[dadofholly]

Well evidently they think the OP is involved, presumably they think the OP and brother in law connived to [problem] them with the brother in law being the fall guy with a sham conviction based on his confession. (Firstly, there is no evidence of this - and if MM was to state it without evidence they could lead themselves open to further litigation for defamation - secondly, What MM thinks is not the issue. The Nemo Dat rule - you cannot give what you do not own - means that the brother in law could never pass title to MM so it was never, and could never be theirs to take) It wouldn't be the first time such a scheme has been cooked up. However unlikely, that eliminates dishonesty and therefore any theft. The conviction is not binding on MM and is not a finding of fact which they cannot argue with. (The Police informed MM that the OP was an innocent party, The OP informed with evidence and to cap it all MM provided evidence to the Court for the prosecution proving the OP was innocent).

 

To the OP - when is the return date for your injunction proceedings? Were MM ordered to file a witness statement or anything in response? It would be interesting to know why even now they refuse to return the vehicle. (Good question)

 

GG i think you are suggesting that MM believe they had legal title to the goods and so were not acting dishonestly - in which case no offence would have been committed - but i believe, from what the OP has told us, that the evidence shows they must have known they did not have title to the goods, and were trying to either sell the car for their own gain, or use it to extort the money from the OP.

 

It may be that their is not enough evidence to convict, but it certainly needs investigating. They are on a loser in the civil courts regardless.

 

TFD - just one thought - was this a log book loan with the log book being left with MM?

[TFD123]

TFD - just one thought - was this a log book loan with the log book being left with MM?

 

I have the origional Logbook I believe part of the [problem] involved no log book so MM has no log book.

I have had a reply from the Chief Constable, well someone he appointed which states that the Police will not get involved.

I will edit and post reply soon.

[Jasper1965]

So MM advanced thousands of pounds without sight of the logbook.

And MM paid the money into the account of somebody who was not the registered keeper.

And MM accepted home made computer generated documents as proof of ownership and insurance.

 

You have to wonder don't you?

 

Not 100% surprised with your reply from Bournville Lane, senior officers do have a tendency to side with decisions made by junior staff from their own station in my experience whether those decisions are correct or not it's just bad form to admit fallibility to a member of the public.

Phone Lloyd House professional standards on 0345 113 5000 if you want an unbiased review from WMP.

[TFD123]

Possibly some one on the inside of MM helped... Worth a Thought

Anyways meeting with MM tomorrow Morning.

After that lodge Claim with CC if no good with MM.

 

Here is the reply from DCI.

Ill keep you updated, its so time consuming.

If thats to small ill try again

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Gosh so it turns out it was a question about lack of evidence of dishonesty after all. What happened about the injunction proceedings? When is the return date?

[dadofholly]

The phrase 'no legal precedent' is telling - because it has never been tested. I Believe this is wrong. The problem for the Police is the claim for MM that they believe they have title. This was an act of dishonesty.

 

Two points. First - they did have the intention of permanentley depriving the owner of the vehicle - as they did not inform the OP that they had taken the vehicle.

Second - MM cannot possibly have any claim on the vehicle because of the nemo dat rule - so the fraudster could not give title as it was not his to give - and MM cannot claim ttle for the same reason.

 

Good luck with MM today - but sue the sods anyway.

 

Has this been reported to the OFT and Trading Standards.

[Jasper1965]

The phrase 'no legal precedent' is telling - because it has never been tested. I Believe this is wrong.

 

Too true you only have to spend some time on the Bailiffs and chattel mortgage forums on this site to understand that the police just do not want any involvement in these type of matters whatever the rights and wrongs. We're having trouble convincing the police that a builder who has taken in excess of £30,000 from householders in deposits for extensions in return for a few hundred £££'s worth of blocks and sand before disappearing might just actually be [causing problems] people (criminal) rather than "experiencing business difficulties" (civil). Frustrating!!

 

Anyway good luck to the OP for this mornings meeting, trust you'll be presenting them with your updated costs and damages bill!!

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Two points. First - they did have the intention of permanentley depriving the owner of the vehicle - as they did not inform the OP that they had taken the vehicle.

Second - MM cannot possibly have any claim on the vehicle because of the nemo dat rule - so the fraudster could not give title as it was not his to give - and MM cannot claim ttle for the same reason.

 

1. Yes of course they had the intention of permanently depriving the OP of the vehicle - they still have it don't they? What is your point?

 

2. If you know about nemo dat you will also know there are several exceptions to it, such as buyer in possession, seller in possession, Factors Act 1889, Hire Purchase Act 1964, estoppel by representation etc. How does anyone know MM are not alleging one of these exceptions? And as for fraudsters not being able to pass title - have you heard of cases like Cundy v Lindsay?

[Jasper1965]

And as for fraudsters not being able to pass title - have you heard of cases like Cundy v Lindsay?

 

 

Have you heard that the house of Lords upheld the appeal Court finding that title did not pass to Cundy (who had to return the goods).?

[dadofholly]

1. Yes of course they had the intention of permanently depriving the OP of the vehicle - they still have it don't they? What is your point?

 

2. If you know about nemo dat you will also know there are several exceptions to it, such as buyer in possession, (There was no buyer) seller in possession, (There was no seller) Factors Act 1889, Hire Purchase Act 1964, (There was no HP agreement) estoppel by representation etc. How does anyone know MM are not alleging one of these exceptions? (I don't if im honest - am going on info so far provided - and opinion based on that - and not making assumptions). And as for fraudsters not being able to pass title - have you heard of cases like Cundy v Lindsay?

 

As for Cundy v Lindsay, Lindsay, the owner of the goods did hold title to the goods and sold them to what turned out to be a fraudster - with who they made a contract, (though unknown to them they were victims of fraud). - The fraudster then sold the goods on.

 

The big difference is that Lindsay actually did hold title when they sold the goods to the fraudster, who their contract was with. And they had no contract with Cundy, the innocent party.

 

Not ony that this was appealed to the house of lords and the goods returned.

 

In the OP's case the fraudster never had title even by fraudulant means. The OP - like Cundy was a totaly innocent party

 

Lindays arguement should have been with the fraudster - not the innocent party.

MM's arguement should be with the Fraudster - not the innocent party.

 

During my time in retail and loss prevention i came accross fraud and theft quite a lot - and i have seen the Police prosecute individuals on similar cases. They just don't see the difference between a company carrying out these acst and an individual - hence no precedent - and in my view this should be for a Court to try, (actually try the evidence and then come to a decision).

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Because a fraudster can't pass title? No. The case is still authority that there are circumstances where a fraudster can pass title. Try Phillips v Brooks or Lewis v Averay if you want an outcome where a fraudster did pass title.

[dadofholly]

The House of Lords decision.

 

The House of Lords held that Lindsay & Co had meant to deal only with Blenkiron & Co. There could therefore have been no agreement or contract between them and the rogue. Accordingly, title did not pass to the rogue, and could not have passed to Cundy. They were forced to therefore return the goods.

[dadofholly]

Because a fraudster can't pass title? No. The case is still authority that there are circumstances where a fraudster can pass title. Try Phillips v Brooks or Lewis v Averay if you want an outcome where a fraudster did pass title.

 

Will gladly look up the cases quoted - but if what you say is correct - how come the police routinley take cars from people who have purchased them in good faith - after they have originaly been stolen or aquired by fraud?

[dadofholly]

In Phillips v Brooks.

 

The party that sold the ring to the fraudster actually held title of the goods to do so. His argument therefore is with the fraudster - not any other later party.

 

The OP's brother in law did not, and never did, have title to give - even for fraud.

 

Lewis v Avery - same as above - The party that sold the car had legal title to do so

 

In all these cases they injured party originaly had title to give - so could give title.

 

Nemo Dat is you cannot give that which you do NOT own.

Edited January 17, 2012 by dadofholly

[Jasper1965]

Because a fraudster can't pass title? No. The case is still authority that there are circumstances where a fraudster can pass title. Try Phillips v Brooks

 

 

Phillips v Brooks is quite pertinent as it involves a face to face transaction. In P v B, A contracts with B in the mistaken belief that B is C. Judgment held that contract is between A and B as these are the two parties that entered into the contract. Notably C is wholly absolved from any involvement in the contract or Court proceedings.

 

In MobileMoney vs OP, MM contracts with 3rd party in the mistaken belief that 3P is OP. Op is absolved from any involvement in the contract which remains between MM and 3P.

This poses the simple following question:

"Did 3P have title to the vehicle when entering into the contract"?

 

If P v B establishes that in a face to face transaction a contract exists and then specifies that the contract is between the two parties who actually meet face to face, then why are MM trying to claim that they own the vehicle because their contract is quite clearly with 3P who held no title to the vehicle, OP being no party to the contract.

 

ps the fraudster had to first obtain title in order to pass it, this he did by virtue of "the contract to purchase" which is what the judgment is all about ie was the contract to purchase valid.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Jasper1965

[dadofholly]

Phillips v Brooks is quite pertinent as it involves a face to face transaction. In P v B, A contracts with B in the mistaken belief that B is C. Judgment held that contract is between A and B as these are the two parties that entered into the contract. Notably C is wholly absolved from any involvement in the contract or Court proceedings.

 

In MobileMoney vs OP, MM contracts with 3rd party in the mistaken belief that 3P is OP. Op is absolved from any involvement in the contract which remains between MM and 3P.

This poses the simple following question:

"Did 3P have title to the vehicle when entering into the contract"?

 

If P v B establishes that in a face to face transaction a contract exists and then specifies that the contract is between the two parties who actually meet face to face, then why are MM trying to claim that they own the vehicle because their contract is quite clearly with 3P who held no title to the vehicle, OP being no party to the contract.

 

ps the fraudster had to first obtain title in order to pass it, this he did by virtue of "the contract to purchase" which is what the judgment is all about ie was the contract to purchase valid.

 

Jasper

 

Thats exactley what i was trying to say - but you have a better way with words

[Jasper1965]

No Probs DoH between you me and GG the Op is going to have plenty of ammo for the civil action. GG has shown us there's some very clear case law on mistaken identity and it all favours the OP.

I'm not trawling back but I think I mentioned much earlier that MM have a case against 3P, the above post explains why I said that.

 

Wonder how the OP got on today.

[Jasper1965]

MM claim to have purchased title to the vehicle by virtue of a contractual agreement.

 

Cundy says contract void ergo no title passed to MM.

P v B says contract valid but between MM and someone who did not hold title ergo no title passed to MM. (nemo Dat)

 

Heads MM lose, tails MM lose

[dadofholly]

 

Wonder how the OP got on today.

 

Was wondering that myself.

Heads MM lose, tails MM lose

 

Would like one of those coins if you have one?

 

GG makes a good point on the 'dishonesty' aspect of the criminal law, and that there is probably not enough evidence to convict. But in my view it should at least be investigated more thoroughly. MM knew what they were doing in my view - and intended to deprive the OP of his car for their gain - at his, (an innocent parties), loss.

 

It's too much of a grey area and needs to be tested in my view.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Oh dear, I wasn't actually suggesting those particular cases be used directly in the current case. I was just using them as examples of where fraudsters can give title, because someone had posted that a fraudster can never give title. There's no point comparing the cases to this one because the facts are different. There's a much more recent case if anyone's interested - Shogun Finance v Hudson, but again different facts to these. Here's another example then. Hirer under a hire purchase agreement sells the vehicle to an innocent purchaser before he has paid the HP off. Innocent purchaser acquires title from a fraudster (who had no title at all, no voidable title, nothing) - the HP company owned the vehicle. Someone also posted about nemo dat being sacrosanct "you can never pass title you do not have"; well there's an example of when you can, and there are plenty of others. Here's another one - you ask me to sell your car for you, I do sell it to someone pretending I am the owner, but don't pay you the proceeds and disappear. Whoever I sold it to gets title, even though I had no title.

 

The problem with this thread is that nowhere is any indication given of what MM's position is, it's all one side of the story only. Maybe they think they are another example of an exception to nemo dat. Odd that the OP seems to have disappeared immediately after his meeting with MM. I asked twice what was happening with the injunction proceedings - no response. OP has only drip fed info so far, makes me wonder if there is something else to the story which explains why MM are so reluctant to return the vehicle.

[dadofholly]

GG I have spoken to a Barrister on this subject reference passing title- you cannot give that which you do not own - simple.

 

Once again the case you quote is where the ORIGINAL OWNER - ie. the seller HAD TITLE to give albeit to a fraudster.

 

The HP example you give may not be fraud - and the seller is still liable for the debt.

 

If the seller was defrauding the finance company then this is covered by the case you quote - where the finance company has title to give.

 

In the second example - the car has been lawfully sold - and the guy than runs off with the money - has stolen the money.

 

You realy need to drop this about MM having any right to title.

 

The advice given on this thread is based on the information provided by the OP - as it should be - if the OP is giving us false information then that is his problem - and a complete waste of his and our time.

 

If there is something the OP is not telling us - and it turns out he is involved and MM have evidence then title would pass as the owner himself would have been involved. Because he did have title to give.

 

We can only give advice on what we are told - not assumptions based on missing info.