Since when have we started listening to you then?
-
Welcome to the new B.I.R.D. Forum. Please be sure to read the "New Member / New Registered ? Please Read" thread in the Coffee Shop. This contains some important information. To become a full member ( £5.90 a year ) simply click on your user name near the top on the right I hope you enjoy the new site ................ Jaws ( John )
Suppliers/contractors
- Thread starter derek kelly
- Start date
Pardon?
So what happened???
We contacted the contractor & he said it’s a misunderstanding & he’ll sort it, not heard a thing since.
Bullsh1t!!!!
A car or bike bought on finance 'in good faith" is legally yours despite what the finance company or plod will tell you
Re plod in this situation a vehicle not stolen has feck all to do with them as its a civil matter so tell them to jog on
I used to be able to quote the exact law on this after being caught out a couple of times but its been a while so i suggest instead of relying on what Doris in Facebook says.... look it up
Unless the law has changed since I studied it I cry ‘bullshit with knobs on’.
Greenwood v Bennett being the most well known case that establishes the principle.
You cannot get a better title to something than the person you obtained it from had.
However, the court can over rule, the same as everything else.
I too Have been caught out; I remember the sinking feeling when I opened a letter from a finance company reclaiming a car I had bought. A gorgeous Mk V 2.3 Ghia Cortina. I had a detailed receipt from the ‘seller’ confirming, amongst other things, that there was no finance outstanding. Fortunately the finance company didn’t take it further (I suspect they recovered money from the ‘seller’)but based on the advice I got at the time I didn’t have a leg to stand on.
Last edited:
First one that popped up on google
If the car you bought is still on hire purchase
Your rights and options if you find out the car you bought is still subject to a hire purchase or conditional sale agreement.
The basis of it is if you are a private buyer that bought "in good faith" eg paid a reasonable amount without knowing about any finance then you are allowed by law to keep the vehicle with a clean title and there is bugger all the finance company can do about it , but they will try and that includes illegally removing the vehicle unless you stop them
Do me a favour and look it up properly Andy
From What Car:
If you bought a car and genuinely had no idea that it had outstanding finance, you have the right to keep it. This is called ‘good title’ and means you bought the car in good faith with no prior knowledge of the problem.
However, the finance company that issued the loan will still want its money back and may contact you about the car. In these circumstances, it's up to the finance company to prove that you don't have good title, not the other way around.
If you bought a car and genuinely had no idea that it had outstanding finance, you have the right to keep it. This is called ‘good title’ and means you bought the car in good faith with no prior knowledge of the problem.
However, the finance company that issued the loan will still want its money back and may contact you about the car. In these circumstances, it's up to the finance company to prove that you don't have good title, not the other way around.
From Citizens Advice:
You often have a right to keep the car - called 'good title' - even if it's still on outstanding hire purchase or conditional sale. You have the right to own the car if all these apply:
Get advice if you're not the first private buyer.
But, you could write to them and explain that you bought the car in good faith and didn't know it was still on hire purchase or conditional sale. It can help to include:
You often have a right to keep the car - called 'good title' - even if it's still on outstanding hire purchase or conditional sale. You have the right to own the car if all these apply:
- you didn't know the car was subject to a hire purchase or conditional sale agreement
- you bought the car honestly and had no reason to think there was a problem - this is called buying 'in good faith'
- you're a 'private buyer' - this means you don't buy cars to sell or hire them on
- you're the first private buyer to buy the car from the person who has the hire purchase or conditional sale agreement
Get advice if you're not the first private buyer.
If the finance company contact you
It's up to the finance company to prove that you don't have good title, rather than you having to prove that you do.But, you could write to them and explain that you bought the car in good faith and didn't know it was still on hire purchase or conditional sale. It can help to include:
- the name and address of the person you bought the car from
- the date you bought it
- details of how the car was advertised - and a copy of the advert if you have it
- how much you paid
- a copy of the receipt or other proof of purchase
The Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Rule
This essay will consider the operation of the nemo dat quod non habet rule and whether the exceptions to it offer an effective compromise.
Natwest Bank Advice:
The first you may know of the finance owing on your car is if the finance company contacts you to repay the debt. While this can be worrying, Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act (1964) can help you if you’re in this situation.
Thanks to this legislation, if you bought your car with no knowledge of the outstanding finance on it, you have the right to keep the car under something called “good title”.
What happens if I accidentally buy a car with finance on it?
If you’re unlucky enough to buy a car with outstanding finance on it, and you only find out after the sale is complete, all is not lost.The first you may know of the finance owing on your car is if the finance company contacts you to repay the debt. While this can be worrying, Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act (1964) can help you if you’re in this situation.
Thanks to this legislation, if you bought your car with no knowledge of the outstanding finance on it, you have the right to keep the car under something called “good title”.
Hmmmmmm
A law student essay with a warning from 2021 vs current advice from the citizens advice, a bank and a reputable car magazine
A law student essay with a warning from 2021 vs current advice from the citizens advice, a bank and a reputable car magazine
And section 27 of the hire purchase act that clearly states the law on thisHmmmmmm
A law student essay with a warning from 2021 vs current advice from the citizens advice, a bank and a reputable car magazine
Plus the fact that i have used this exact law twice now when have been genuinely caught out on vehicles with finance (the first was my bird after 18 months of ownership)
But Andy knows better?
If you read the ‘advice’ it is littered with ‘coulds’ Plus one vital aspect that nobody is picking up on.Hmmmmmm
A law student essay with a warning from 2021 vs current advice from the citizens advice, a bank and a reputable car magazine
The law is clear on transfer of title.
What MAY happen in practice at times is different, particularly when commercial decisions are applied by the HP/lease company.
The "advice" makes clear that if the finance company still persists you go to the industry ombudsman, if they recover the vehicle you go to court and recover the vehicle/all your monies/costs.
That "advice" is exactly that given by Natwest Bank - now exactly what is Natwest, oh yes, a bank that provides finance for buying vehicles!
The basic point is that you do have good title because you bought in good faith.
Your title is not transferred by the seller, it's established by your good faith in buying the goods.
In order to recover the goods the finance company must prove you did not act in good faith. For example you only paid half the market value and should have known something was wrong.
Not much difference from Derek's question about the seller of his garden slabs contacting him as the builder hadn't paid him and he wanted the slabs back or Derek to pay. DK bought in "good faith", has no contract with the supplier (or finance company!) so he has firm good title to the goods.
Like any other company, a finance company will push to and beyond the legal limits where they can.
In a previous role I had extensive dealings/advice with our legal department in contracting for goods/services/software etc.
At times I wanted to include restrictions/requirements into contracts and they would advise that while I could include whatever I wanted, it would be unlikely or at best 50/50 if it ended up in a court that I could sustain the position.
My experience was that those restrictions succeeded as it never ended up in court.
In the same way I was able to obtain advantage of poorly worded contracts by other organisations. By challenging, for example, licensing restrictions on software. Limits built into the software were removed when I pointed out I felt they weren't sufficiently identified in the contract.
Each time the legal advice was "you certainly can take that position, but it is unlikely to succeed should it end up in court".
That "advice" is exactly that given by Natwest Bank - now exactly what is Natwest, oh yes, a bank that provides finance for buying vehicles!
The basic point is that you do have good title because you bought in good faith.
Your title is not transferred by the seller, it's established by your good faith in buying the goods.
In order to recover the goods the finance company must prove you did not act in good faith. For example you only paid half the market value and should have known something was wrong.
Not much difference from Derek's question about the seller of his garden slabs contacting him as the builder hadn't paid him and he wanted the slabs back or Derek to pay. DK bought in "good faith", has no contract with the supplier (or finance company!) so he has firm good title to the goods.
Like any other company, a finance company will push to and beyond the legal limits where they can.
In a previous role I had extensive dealings/advice with our legal department in contracting for goods/services/software etc.
At times I wanted to include restrictions/requirements into contracts and they would advise that while I could include whatever I wanted, it would be unlikely or at best 50/50 if it ended up in a court that I could sustain the position.
My experience was that those restrictions succeeded as it never ended up in court.
In the same way I was able to obtain advantage of poorly worded contracts by other organisations. By challenging, for example, licensing restrictions on software. Limits built into the software were removed when I pointed out I felt they weren't sufficiently identified in the contract.
Each time the legal advice was "you certainly can take that position, but it is unlikely to succeed should it end up in court".
You are correct in many but not all areas.
I’m tapping out as I have a day to get on with.
From UK legal site:
where the seller has no right to sell the goods. The seller with no title to the goods cannot pass ownership to the buyer.
There are exceptions to this:
If the seller sells a car, which is under a HP agreement then as long as the buyer is a private individual and not a trader and did not know the car was under a HP agreement, ownership will pass to the buyer.
where the seller has no right to sell the goods. The seller with no title to the goods cannot pass ownership to the buyer.
There are exceptions to this:
If the seller sells a car, which is under a HP agreement then as long as the buyer is a private individual and not a trader and did not know the car was under a HP agreement, ownership will pass to the buyer.