Sell car on HP, plead ignorance?

Pique

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-orders-woman-to-find-car-she-sold-29364042.html

Story 'seems' to be that a woman bought a car that was on HP with 14k owed on it. It went to court in March and she entered some kind of plea (article doesn't say what).

She subsequently sells on the car in full knowledge of it being the subject of a HP agreement.

The original owner and person who took out the HP was not in court.


Now, the issue at hand. The judge has told HER to find the car (as if the VRO don't have that info!).

Morally, she's a be-atch, but (playing devil's advocate) she was protecting her investment by screwing some other poor bastard who didn't do a carcheck on the vehicle before buying it, and getting a few grand of her money back and passing the loss onto the current owner (poor bastard!).

Legally though, I don't see how she could be held responsible. The HP agreement isn't in her name, and if she didn't lie to the current owner regarding outstanding finance then what is her liability?

The judge has put some onus on her to come up with information about the vehicle (which I find hard to believe is possible, as she is now just like you or I, and has no right to such details, if she didn't keep contact details of the buyer in the first place etc.).

Interesting case.

darragh o meara

The car is legally the property of the bank who financed the car so whatever poor sod bought it is gonna be minus a car pretty soon and will have to take the original seller to court for her money back which I reckon could take a long long time.

Repo companies have plenty of ways of finding out where the car is so I'm surprised that they haven't gotten the car already or were they waiting to have legal documentation so that they can just go and pick it up.

Either way if ever buying a newish car ( older cars don't tend to be in hp ) do a bloody car check for the sake of €20-30. It could save you a serious headache later. If the car is on hpake sure the seller pays it off with the funds by giving two drafts, one for the hp company for the outstanding balance and the rest to the seller ( actually scrap that, in not sure you can do that with hp )

mathepac

The seller needs to inform the legal and beneficial owners of the car that he is offering it for sale and must have their permission.

MarkR

I wonder how old the car was? 18k left on HO, and she's selling it for 4.

Corkbah

MarkR wrote: »

I wonder how old the car was? 18k left on HO, and she's selling it for 4.

she allegedly purchased the car for €4K - from a guy on the side of the road....and allegedly sold it last month to someone who she doesn't have contact details - despite knowing that the car was subject to court orders and a legal action.

now the courts have a judgement order saying that the HP people own the car as it was originally under a HP agreement - but she doesn't know/wont say where the car is. (if the HP people get control of the car she is left with nothing, her €4K is gone and her car is gone)

essentially - if you purchase a car with outstanding finance (in this case €18K was still owed) - then you could loose your car, because the person selling it doesn't have the authority to sell.

corktina

If she has sold it in full knowledge that it belongs to someone else (IE HP company) then I think she's in deep doo-doo, the Judge doesn't believe her I'd say but is being decent by ordering her to find it. She would cross the Judge at her peril!

Corkbah

corktina wrote: »

If she has sold it in full knowledge that it belongs to someone else (IE HP company) then I think she's in deep doo-doo, the Judge doesn't believe her I'd say but is being decent by ordering her to find it. She would cross the Judge at her peril!

if she has sold it and is capable of finding the new owner - that person faces loosing their car and she could be faced with judgement against her if that person goes to court to sue her, if she has not sold it she faces loosing her car and the €4K she allegedly purchased it with.

either way .... we won't find out until 2 weeks time

Pique

corktina wrote: »

If she has sold it in full knowledge that it belongs to someone else (IE HP company) then I think she's in deep doo-doo,

Is she though ? I mean, is there an actual law against it?

The judge may find her in contempt of court for the sale but apart from that, I didn't think there was anything 'illegal' about selling a car on finance without disclosing it.

Corkbah

Pique wrote: »

Is she though ? I mean, is there an actual law against it?

The judge may find her in contempt of court for the sale but apart from that, I didn't think there was anything 'illegal' about selling a car on finance without disclosing it.

would it not be considered fraud as the seller is not the legal owner of the car and therefore not able to actually complete the sale !

drunkmonkey

To be fair to her they only way she would ever get her money back was to sell it, now what the judge makes of that is going to be interesting, have the bank a claim over the 4,000, I doubt it.

Corkbah

drunkmonkey wrote: »

To be fair to her they only way she would ever get her money back was to sell it, now what the judge makes of that is going to be interesting, have the bank a claim over the 4,000, I doubt it.

if she knew there was court proceedings in place she could be faced with breach of a court order if she has indeed sold on the car, as part of proceedings she would not be allowed to sell it on as it was also not her property to sell on.

Kristopherus

Whats to stop her from suing the scumbag that sold it to her in the first place?

drunkmonkey

Corkbah wrote: »

if she knew there was court proceedings in place she could be faced with breach of a court order if she has indeed sold on the car, as part of proceedings she would not be allowed to sell it on as it was also not her property to sell on.

was there an order saying she couldn't sell the car though? You'd think it would have been impounded or something once it became knows the car was the banks property. Has the judge slipped up and can he impose a monetary fine for breach of an order if there is one.

Zubeneschamali

drunkmonkey wrote: »

was there an order saying she couldn't sell the car though?

It doesn't take a court order to say that I can't sell you the Brooklyn bridge. If I take your money and tell you I sold you the Broolyn bridge, that's fraud.

Zubeneschamali

Kristopherus wrote: »

Whats to stop her from suing the scumbag that sold it to her in the first place?

She "bought" it for cash at the side of the road.

testicle

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

She "bought" it for cash at the side of the road.

From Michael Clampett, of Townspark, Athy, Co Kildare.

Zubeneschamali

testicle wrote: »

From Michael Clampett, of Townspark, Athy, Co Kildare.

Allegedly.

djimi

Im confused about the time line of this. The article said that she must have known that the car had outstanding finance on it when she sold it, but why are they coming to this conclusion? It said that two attempt to deliver two summons to her were unsuccessful. Shady as it might look, can she prove that she knew about the situation?

As far as I can see if the HP company can only persue the original seller; he has the outstanding debt and ultimately he is responsible for it. He sold the car; its up to him to get it back to the HP company. They can ask this girl where the car is now, but if she said that she no longer has possession of it then as far as I can tell it should be the job of the original seller to find out where it is now, not this girls problem.

Zubeneschamali

djimi wrote: »

The article said that she must have known that the car had outstanding finance on it when she sold it, but why are they coming to this conclusion?

Quoting the judge in the Indo article:

You entered an appearance and a form of defence in March last and you say you sold the car a month ago when you must have been aware of these proceedings and the claim being taken by the bank.

So she was aware of the proceedings because she submitted documents to the court last March, months before she "sold" the car in May.

Chris_Heilong

HP companies keep records of their customers, can they not trace the original buyer?

Corkbah

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

HP companies keep records of their customers, can they not trace the original buyer?

read the top of this page and the article (link available in the original post).... the original owner was also subject to the Civil Court proceedings - but didn't turn up to court.

Zubeneschamali

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

HP companies keep records of their customers, can they not trace the original buyer?

They did, and he's being sued, too, as stated in the article linked in the OP.

They went after the woman because she had their car, and they want it back.

Pique

I don't understand why they just go after the current owner of the car. They found her through the VRO I assume, so why not get the current owners details the same way and just seize the car from him ?

Corkbah

Pique wrote: »

I don't understand why they just go after the current owner of the car. They found her through the VRO I assume, so why not get the current owners details the same way and just seize the car from him ?

because she "claims" to have sold the car (it may still be registered in her name) ... in other words ...the car is missing, no-one knows where it is, the judge has told her to find out where it is before the next occasion.

even if it was sold, there would be a constant "passing the parcel" by people making it difficult to take legal action - someone at the end of the chain suffers because they didn't do their research prior to purchasing....in this case, it could be this girl, or it could be a person she has sold it on to, it could be put aside for a couple of months until the court case is done with, it might surprise you but there are a decent number of cars on the road which are subject to hire purchase agreements - if the person sells those on they are duty bound by contract to inform the HP company and pay off the outstanding finance.

Zubeneschamali

Pique wrote: »

I don't understand why they just go after the current owner of the car.

The bank are the current owner of the car. "Warning: you will not own goods until final payment is made"

cpoh1

There's a difference between being the legal owner and having an equitable interest in the car which is what the HP company or finance companies in general would have? Who's name goes on the cars logbook?

If the lady who bought the car had the car transferred to her name on the logbook and then sold it on using the normal methds then legally she did nothing wrong imo.

That lady needs a good solicitor who would tear that judge to shreds.

Zubeneschamali

cpoh1 wrote: »

If the lady who bought the car had the car transferred to her name on the logbook and then sold it on using the normal methds then legally she did nothing wrong imo.

Of course she did something wrong! Two months after she was told that she did not own the car, she "sold" the banks car to some other sucker in a game of pass the parcel!

djimi

cpoh1 wrote: »

If the lady who bought the car had the car transferred to her name on the logbook and then sold it on using the normal methds then legally she did nothing wrong imo.

That lady needs a good solicitor who would tear that judge to shreds.

I would agree with this if she didnt know (or the court couldnt prove that she knew) about the situation. As it stands, it seems that she knew full well what the story with the HP situation was before she sold the car, so its hard to say that she did nothing wrong and that she cannot or will not be pursued legally.

recyclebin

I really don't get how HP works in Ireland. It really makes it very easy for fraud to occur and it this kind of thing has been happening for years.

So solve this problem the banks name should be on the logbook and the bank holds onto the logbook until the final payment is made and then everyone would know where they stand.

pcardin

She has tattoed tits so technically she is elligable to commit any fraud she likes. :rolleyes:

Corkbah

pcardin wrote: »

She has tattoed tits so technically she is elligable to commit any fraud she likes. :rolleyes:

how high up on a woman do you think boobs go ? the tattoo visible in the pic is almost her shoulder.

unless you know something the rest of us dont !!

pcardin

Corkbah wrote: »

unless you know something the rest of us dont !!

Unless I know something the rest of you don't, which is that usually there is a left one and a right one.

Corkbah

pcardin wrote: »

Unless I know something the rest of you don't, which is that usually there is a left one and a right one.

yeah but that tattoo is not boob height

pcardin

Corkbah wrote: »

yeah but that tattoo is not boob height

Ok. Point taken. Maybe tatoo isn't boob height anymore. :rolleyes:

AltAccount

recyclebin wrote: »

I really don't get how HP works in Ireland. It really makes it very easy for fraud to occur and it this kind of thing has been happening for years.

So solve this problem the banks name should be on the logbook and the bank holds onto the logbook until the final payment is made and then everyone would know where they stand.

And your tax disk and speeding fines go where?

homingbird

What if the poor sod that bought the car sold it outside the country so it would have new plates . Its the only way for her get her money back & new owner gets to keep the car.

AltAccount

homingbird wrote: »

What if the poor sod that bought the car sold it outside the country so it would have new plates . Its the only way for her get her money back & new owner gets to keep the car.

Why on earth would she get her money back?

slimjimmc

cpoh1 wrote: »

There's a difference between being the legal owner and having an equitable interest in the car which is what the HP company or finance companies in general would have? Who's name goes on the cars logbook?

The legal owner is the HP company, but I expect the car is registered in the name of the client (or in this case subsequent buyers), after all that's how the keeper gets the speeding/parking fines, tax renewal notices, etc.
The log book in itself does not confer legal ownership and might even be as good as useless if ownership is contested.

cpoh1 wrote: »

If the lady who bought the car had the car transferred to her name on the logbook and then sold it on using the normal methds then legally she did nothing wrong imo.

That lady needs a good solicitor who would tear that judge to shreds.

Only if she genuinely didn't know it wasn't her's to buy or sell. In this case it seems she did know and sold it anyway.

maidhc

homingbird wrote: »

What if the poor sod that bought the car sold it outside the country so it would have new plates . Its the only way for her get her money back & new owner gets to keep the car.

They guy who bought the car might actually have title to it if he was completely unaware of the past history of it due to s.25 of the Factors Act 1889.