Jump to content
doolan1972

bought a car HPI clear now finance company want car back

Recommended Posts

I bouight a car from a private add in autotrader .

I carried out an RAC hpi check and there were no issues.

now a finance company (credit plus) claim its theirs and are taking me to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i saw the car advertised in autotrader

i made arrangements to view,the day

 

i went to view i spent £20 on an RAC hpi check and it was all clear.

I also tapped the reg plate in to we buy any car just to confirm i was paying the correct price.

 

I liked the car and wit drew the cash from the bank that day to give to seller.

credit plus gave the rogue seller finance on the vehicle of which he didnt pay any of the repayments and sold it to me afterwards.

 

the finance was taken out 1 month before i bought it and it was declared stolen 2 moths later by credit plus.

 

i am refusing to give car to them as i bought in good faith with an HPI check for my own protection. i have a court date january 2019.

 

they are waiving hudson v shogun finance under my nose but im not convinced its the same type of case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you been in touch with rac?

As far as I remember they offer a guarantee on their hpi which would cover cases such as this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is only considered 'best practice' to list cars with finance outstanding on an HPI/Experian check. There is nothing to make finance companies declare an interest in a vehicle. I know this as i was in a very similar situation and ended up paying for the car again.

 

This was 2 years after we purchased the car. The dealer had a finance agreement on the vehicle and then went bust. At the time of purchase the vehicle was 'clear' on the Experian check. I think the 'insurance' against the information will not help.

 

The finance company own the car and will win in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue that appears to work against you here is the fact that the vehicle was fraudulently sold so soon after the finance had been taken out, with no payments being made. This would indicate that there was an intention to commit this crime from the start (i.e. use the finance as a means to steal the vehicle). This takes the matter into different waters than if the vehicle was being sold further into the life of a HP agreement.

 

Normally, providing you could demonstrate that you were clearly acting in good faith, you would be able to claim the rights of an innocent purchaser under s27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 however in this case the actions of the seller would suggest that good title to the (stolen) goods is unlikely to have passed to you.

 

The HPI check is a sideshow because it does not make any difference legally to either the buyer or the lender.

 

My only suggestion is to present your case as best you can in court and see what they decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the last post makes any sense.

The op didn't take finance out, he is the innocent purchaser.

In fact he even diligently paid to check any outstanding finance on the car.

The finance company under the legislation mentioned, should go after the seller who fraudulently sold the vehicle soon after having obtained finance on it.

My money is on the op winning his car.

Anyhow, have you tried to claim through rac insurance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the last post makes any sense.

The op didn't take finance out, he is the innocent purchaser.

In fact he even diligently paid to check any outstanding finance on the car.

The finance company under the legislation mentioned, should go after the seller who fraudulently sold the vehicle soon after having obtained finance on it.

My money is on the op winning his car.

Anyhow, have you tried to claim through rac insurance?

 

Not sure what doesn't make any sense about my post? I never said the OP took finance out, I was talking about the finance that the person (the fraudster) took out immediately prior to selling the vehicle to the OP. Assuming that finance agreement was indeed a fraudulent one then the decision in Hudson v Shogun Finance may well bind the court in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the vehicle is still on finance, the company will go after the car. Then the person who took it out. If the OP has the car and cant pay the finance off himself, then they can and will take it. Then go after the original owner for the shortfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
I bouight a car from a private add in autotrader .

I carried out an RAC hpi check and there were no issues.

now a finance company (credit plus) claim its theirs and are taking me to court.

 

The RAC are not interested in the £30k guarantee as they are insisting when i did the HPI check there was nothing showing as far as finance is concerned.

sorry for late reply have been on holiday.

 

Rac not interested as they say there was no finance on the car when the check was done.

Edited by dx100uk
merge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's incorrect because the finance had already been taken out a month before if I recollect rightly.

I would insist on RAC to make good, even threatening court and at the same time defend against the finance company as you bought the car clearly not knowing about the finance.

The legislation is quite clear and the must prove that you knew about the finance to take your car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The small print only covers £1000 in cash. I drew the money out of the bank on that day after viewing car as the rogue wanted cash,should of smelt a rat then but i didnt as felt ok with RAC report that i had done.

That's incorrect because the finance had already been taken out a month before if I recollect rightly.

I would insist on RAC to make good, even threatening court and at the same time defend against the finance company as you bought the car clearly not knowing about the finance.

The legislation is quite clear and the must prove that you knew about the finance to take your car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looking through the court forms the claimant has submitted an HPI report clearly showing their interest in the car but it is dated 1 year after the event!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to redact the documents because they're showing your name address and registration number

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasonable Ron is the one here making sense.

The law is not fair and if 2 people have been affected by the same rogue then the loss should be split . Why should I loose out to a piece of common law legislation 30 years ago that obviously needs to be changed. Also any company that sells Hpi checks should be banned from doing so because they are not worth the paper they are written on if a lender is not legally a luges to register it’s interest on the system directly after monies have been lent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I know the rogue was a rogue? He could be real and in on the fraud with credit plus. It all stinks in favour of the bank again!! The lender was Raphael and sons bank who were at the time members of ccta which says in section 5.1 of its code of practice that any of its members should register their interest with the likes of Hpi etc within 24 hours of lending, this is of no use to me as their membership expired in nov 2018 .👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Tweets

  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • I was talked into signing up with Future Comms (future-comms.co.uk) who cold-called me to change my mobile contract to them, via 02, rather than EE. I have a small business (only me!) and it's a business contract. True, the 4G network is better for my area. This company seemed to be a marketing set-up for various telecoms companies, so I assumed anything I signed would be with 02 and didn't think it might be a problem.
       
      They sent an email whilst I was on the phone to set up the direct debit mandate with my bank which I signed electronically. That was the first, of many, problems I found. Apparently THAT was my contract, binding me to 3 years and no 'cooling off' period, because I was a 'business' (meaning any consumer rights did not apply). When I subsequently asked in writing for a copy of my contract, that is what they sent - when I argued it was a DD mandate they insisted it was my contract!
       
      2 days later they asked for my phone details to get it unlocked which I sent. 10 days later, EE closed my account, so I changed the SIM card to 02 that had come a few days before. No network! They had done nothing about unlocking it. Fortunately I was lucky with EE who managed to give me the right codes, rather than the usual 10 days to go through Samsung.
       
      By this time I was suspicious of their set-up and wanted to cancel. As I said earlier, I found myself trapped into a 3 year contract with no 14 day cooling off period (they don't offer that). Promises to deal with my complaints never happened, promised return calls neither....and on and on.
       
      Ofcom's rules apply to consumers and small businesses (under 10 employees), yet this shower don't acknowledge that. They just repeat and repeat that I am a business so it doesn't apply. To cancel the contract I have to pay the full 3 year's fees!!
       
      I would like to know if others have had similar experiences? Or does anyone know how I can maybe declare the 'contract' unenforceable? I have never before been locked into something without a clear written contract, with t&c's! And, yes, I have asked, and yes, I have been ignored.
      • 84 replies
    • Future comms!. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415706-future-comms/
      • 8 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...