On Thu 24 Apr 2008 18:07:52, Steve Firth
wrote:

PM wrote:

[...]

Well that's where a lawyer comes in. Because I'm not sure of what
the difference is and who gets taken as the owner.

As others have pointed out the V5C is irrelevant to the question
of ownership. The problem is as far as I see it that it depends
who handed over the cash for the car. If he did it, then I suspect
he is the owner. If the parents did it they are the owners.

The reason I think this way is that him paying for the car makes
him the owner. Them lending him the money makes them his
creditors, but since they did not create a hire purchase (or
similar) agreement they have no charge over the car. Therefore it
is his.

He still owes them the money.

We then get into areas of law I really don't understand which is
can they have a lien over his property? If they do have a lien do
they have the right to sell the vehicle to offset his debt?

I'll support my analogy with an example. I go to my bank and
borrow £5000. I then buy a car for £5000. Does the bank own the
car? No. I stop making repayments to the bank. Do they then have a
lien over the car? No. Do I still owe them £5000? Yes. Can they
seize the car and sell it to offset my debt? Possibly, but not
before they have obtained a judgement in their favour from a
court. Then in the event of non-payment they would have to return
to court to obtain one of the following:

A warrant of execution - sending a court bailiff to collect the
money. An attachment of earnings order - stopping the money from
wages. A third party debt order - freezing a bank account.
A charging order - paid on the sale of the defendant's house.

I think that's the position the parents are in, unfortunately. And
I suspect that if Mr B. gets his act together he could have them
for theft if they get hold of and keep the car. They are in a
difficult position, their remedy in law is civil, which means they
have to pay, it takes time and any decision will be effectively
unenforceable.

All he has to do is to tell plod they stole his car and they end
up with a criminal record.

IANAL.

Steve, I agree with all you say and add an observation.

If Mr B bought the car then presumably his partner, Miss A, received
approximately half of its value as a utility even if she doesn't drive.

So it would be reasonable to expect she pay half. IANAL but I think
the law would uphold this even if there was no written contract.

So this adds a related additional monetary consideration to the
situation.

The half Miss A would be expected to pay for may be:
(1) half the cost price
(2) half the depreciation.
Running and maintenance costs would be an extra amount to be split
between in both (1) and (B).

If she paid half the cost price, possibility (1) above, then half the
loan could be seen as being for her. Especially if the money was
loaned with the understanding that it was to buy a car for both Mr B &
Miss A.

----

One other point is that it might be quite reasonable for Miss A's
parents to have gifted this sort of amount to Miss A and Mr B for the
mutual benefit of Miss A and Mr B. After running and maintenance costs
have been agreed and settled then they would each own half the car.

Alternatively the parents may have gifted the money to Miss A but given
the actual cash to Mr B to make the selection (and subsequent purchase)
of the car for her.