Here's the situation:

Miss A and Mr B have lived together for around 12 years.

A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a car.
This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back. This is a
major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is unknown
whether there is a receipt for the car.

The car is registered in Mr B's nameand was used by Mr B as the family car.
Miss A does not drive.

Recently the relationship between Miss A and Mr B broke down, to the extent
that Mr B no longer lives with Miss A. There is a huge amount of bad feeling
on both sides, and for the purposes of this post let's assume a
reconciliation won't happen.

Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it back as
part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house and she holds
the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.


Who owns the vehicle?
If Miss A's parents can prove they paid the money for it - say by showing a
bank withdrawal for the £5k at the time the car was bought - can they claim
ownership?
Can the vehicle's registered keeper be re-assigned to be either Miss A or
Miss A's parents - none of whom drive - without the consent of Mr B?

None of the family are the kind of people to sit down and discuss things
rationally.

"PM" wrote in message
...
Here's the situation:

Miss A and Mr B have lived together for around 12 years.

A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a
car.
This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back. This is
a
major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is unknown
whether there is a receipt for the car.

The car is registered in Mr B's nameand was used by Mr B as the family
car.
Miss A does not drive.

Recently the relationship between Miss A and Mr B broke down, to the
extent
that Mr B no longer lives with Miss A. There is a huge amount of bad
feeling
on both sides, and for the purposes of this post let's assume a
reconciliation won't happen.

Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it back
as
part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house and she holds
the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.


Who owns the vehicle?
If Miss A's parents can prove they paid the money for it - say by showing
a
bank withdrawal for the £5k at the time the car was bought - can they
claim
ownership?
Can the vehicle's registered keeper be re-assigned to be either Miss A or
Miss A's parents - none of whom drive - without the consent of Mr B?

None of the family are the kind of people to sit down and discuss things
rationally.




Difficult one that as it being a verbal agreement, try one of the uk.legal
groups?

Pity it wasn't a cheque given instead of monies.

PM ("PM" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Here's the situation:

Miss A and Mr B have lived together for around 12 years.

A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a
car. This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back.
This is a major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is
unknown whether there is a receipt for the car.

The car is registered in Mr B's nameand was used by Mr B as the family
car. Miss A does not drive.

Recently the relationship between Miss A and Mr B broke down, to the
extent that Mr B no longer lives with Miss A. There is a huge amount of
bad feeling on both sides, and for the purposes of this post let's
assume a reconciliation won't happen.

Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it back
as part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house and she
holds the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.

But the V5C is in his name?

Who owns the vehicle?

No way to be certain without it going to court, but I'd say that Mr B had
the strongest claim at the mo.

If Miss A's parents can prove they paid the money for it - say by
showing a bank withdrawal for the £5k at the time the car was bought -
can they claim ownership?

I wouldn't have thought so - the loan would be unsecured on the car, just
the same as the bank wouldn't be able to repossess the car if you
defaulted on the £5k unsecured loan you'd taken out to buy it.

What's the car worth now?

Can the vehicle's registered keeper be re-assigned to be either Miss A
or Miss A's parents - none of whom drive - without the consent of Mr B?

Registered Keeper is, as DVLA take every opportunity to remind, nothing
to do with legal ownership. They can apply to get a V5C in their name,
but Mr B will get a letter from DVLA saying "Do you agree?". If he agrees
or ignores the letter, they'll eventually get a V5C through. But they
still won't HAVE the car...

If they use those spare keys to "reclaim" it, then Mr B is going to ring
plod and report it nicked. Since his name's on the V5C, they're going to
go with that.

None of the family are the kind of people to sit down and discuss things
rationally.

Naturally...

Strikes me the most sensible next step is to go Small Claims on him for
half of the original loan. Of course, since it was all agreed verbally
only, there's probably not a lot of point in that.

x-posted to uk.legal

PM wrote:

A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a car.
This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back. This is a
major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is unknown
whether there is a receipt for the car.

Well, so much is going to depend on the non-existent contract that I see
this turning into another Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Mr ******* could well
argue that Miss Ass entered into the loan agreement, not him or that it
was a joint loan or indeed that it wasn't a loan it was a gift.

Miss Ass is deminstrating why co-habitation is fraught with problems and
why lending money to someone without a written agreement is a really
silly idea. As usual, there's also an element of post relationship anger
and Parents Gullible no doubt what to hurt Mr ******* for the insult and
outrage to Daughter Miss Ass.

They are possibly also stuck with the problem that the car is no longer
worth £5k.

They need proper legal advice, they may have legal cover on their house
insurance. But I suspect they'll get told it's not worth pursuing.

"George" wrote in message
news

"PM" wrote in message
...
Here's the situation:

Miss A and Mr B have lived together for around 12 years.

A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a
car.
This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back. This
is
a
major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is unknown
whether there is a receipt for the car.

The car is registered in Mr B's nameand was used by Mr B as the family
car.
Miss A does not drive.

Recently the relationship between Miss A and Mr B broke down, to the
extent
that Mr B no longer lives with Miss A. There is a huge amount of bad
feeling
on both sides, and for the purposes of this post let's assume a
reconciliation won't happen.

Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it back
as
part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house and she
holds
the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.


Who owns the vehicle?
If Miss A's parents can prove they paid the money for it - say by
showing
a
bank withdrawal for the £5k at the time the car was bought - can they
claim
ownership?
Can the vehicle's registered keeper be re-assigned to be either Miss A
or
Miss A's parents - none of whom drive - without the consent of Mr B?

None of the family are the kind of people to sit down and discuss things
rationally.




Difficult one that as it being a verbal agreement, try one of the uk.legal
groups?


Oops...s'where it was supposed to go :-D

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
PM ("PM" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Here's the situation:

Miss A and Mr B have lived together for around 12 years.

A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a
car. This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back.
This is a major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is
unknown whether there is a receipt for the car.

The car is registered in Mr B's nameand was used by Mr B as the family
car. Miss A does not drive.

Recently the relationship between Miss A and Mr B broke down, to the
extent that Mr B no longer lives with Miss A. There is a huge amount of
bad feeling on both sides, and for the purposes of this post let's
assume a reconciliation won't happen.

Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it back
as part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house and she
holds the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.

But the V5C is in his name?

Yes - at her address.



Who owns the vehicle?

No way to be certain without it going to court, but I'd say that Mr B had
the strongest claim at the mo.

That is, of course, not the answer that Miss A's parents want to hear :-)


If Miss A's parents can prove they paid the money for it - say by
showing a bank withdrawal for the £5k at the time the car was bought -
can they claim ownership?

I wouldn't have thought so - the loan would be unsecured on the car, just
the same as the bank wouldn't be able to repossess the car if you
defaulted on the £5k unsecured loan you'd taken out to buy it.

What's the car worth now?

Probably around £1.5 - 2k


Can the vehicle's registered keeper be re-assigned to be either Miss A
or Miss A's parents - none of whom drive - without the consent of Mr B?

Registered Keeper is, as DVLA take every opportunity to remind, nothing
to do with legal ownership. They can apply to get a V5C in their name,
but Mr B will get a letter from DVLA saying "Do you agree?". If he agrees
or ignores the letter, they'll eventually get a V5C through. But they
still won't HAVE the car...

Miss A has the car at the moment, and it has been immobilised so Mr B can't
use his key. However, he'll have contacts with low loaders - and low
scruples - if he really wants it back.


If they use those spare keys to "reclaim" it, then Mr B is going to ring
plod and report it nicked. Since his name's on the V5C, they're going to
go with that.

He'd have to get insurance first...


None of the family are the kind of people to sit down and discuss things
rationally.

Naturally...

Strikes me the most sensible next step is to go Small Claims on him for
half of the original loan. Of course, since it was all agreed verbally
only, there's probably not a lot of point in that.

Agreed


x-posted to uk.legal

Which was where I meant to post in the first place!

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:56:12 +0100, "PM" wrote:

Here's the situation:

Miss A and Mr B have lived together for around 12 years.

A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a car.
This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back. This is a
major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is unknown
whether there is a receipt for the car.

The car is registered in Mr B's nameand was used by Mr B as the family car.
Miss A does not drive.

Recently the relationship between Miss A and Mr B broke down, to the extent
that Mr B no longer lives with Miss A. There is a huge amount of bad feeling
on both sides, and for the purposes of this post let's assume a
reconciliation won't happen.

Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it back as
part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house and she holds
the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.


Who owns the vehicle?
If Miss A's parents can prove they paid the money for it - say by showing a
bank withdrawal for the £5k at the time the car was bought - can they claim
ownership?
Can the vehicle's registered keeper be re-assigned to be either Miss A or
Miss A's parents - none of whom drive - without the consent of Mr B?

None of the family are the kind of people to sit down and discuss things
rationally.


The vehicle owner is the name on the license.

All the rest is hot air for a court to sort out.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
PM wrote:

A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a
car.
This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back. This
is a
major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is unknown
whether there is a receipt for the car.

Well, so much is going to depend on the non-existent contract that I see
this turning into another Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Mr ******* could well
argue that Miss Ass entered into the loan agreement, not him or that it
was a joint loan or indeed that it wasn't a loan it was a gift.

Miss Ass is deminstrating why co-habitation is fraught with problems and
why lending money to someone without a written agreement is a really
silly idea. As usual, there's also an element of post relationship anger
and Parents Gullible no doubt what to hurt Mr ******* for the insult and
outrage to Daughter Miss Ass.

Insult, outrage, criminal damage to home and physical assault. So far.


They are possibly also stuck with the problem that the car is no longer
worth £5k.

Less than £2k I'd guess.


They need proper legal advice, they may have legal cover on their house
insurance.

I doubt they have house insurance. Or car insurance for that matter.

PM wrote:
Here's the situation:

Miss A and Mr B have lived together for around 12 years.

A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a car.
This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back. This is a
major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is unknown
whether there is a receipt for the car.

The car is registered in Mr B's nameand was used by Mr B as the family car.
Miss A does not drive.

Recently the relationship between Miss A and Mr B broke down, to the extent
that Mr B no longer lives with Miss A. There is a huge amount of bad feeling
on both sides, and for the purposes of this post let's assume a
reconciliation won't happen.

Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it back as
part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house and she holds
the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.


Who owns the vehicle?

Miss A's parents actually.


If Miss A's parents can prove they paid the money for it - say by showing a
bank withdrawal for the £5k at the time the car was bought - can they claim
ownership?

Yes.

Can the vehicle's registered keeper be re-assigned to be either Miss A or
Miss A's parents - none of whom drive - without the consent of Mr B?


Yes. I think so.


None of the family are the kind of people to sit down and discuss things
rationally.


well the easy option here is that someone takes miss A's keys and drives
the vehicle away.

She sells it and signs the registration docs.

another way is to phone up DVLC and get the address details changed and
new registration sent, and then sign that from the new address.

Or simply sell the car and dont notify the DVLC.

This puts all the burden on r B to prove it is his. He only has
registration document, and that is not a legally binding ting.

PM ("PM" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it
back as part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house
and she holds the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.

But the V5C is in his name?

Yes - at her address.

Sorry, I'd missed that the car's actually at her place. So she's got
everything bar the name on the V5. Small but vital difference. I assumed
he'd taken it with him and was using it as his. In that case, I think I'd
definitely be getting it re-registered. The V5C is still at her address,
so he's not going to get a chance to object.

Who owns the vehicle?

No way to be certain without it going to court, but I'd say that Mr B
had the strongest claim at the mo.

That is, of course, not the answer that Miss A's parents want to hear

See above. Possession is 9/10ths... grin

Can the vehicle's registered keeper be re-assigned to be either Miss
A or Miss A's parents - none of whom drive - without the consent of
Mr B?

Registered Keeper is, as DVLA take every opportunity to remind, nothing
to do with legal ownership. They can apply to get a V5C in their name,
but Mr B will get a letter from DVLA saying "Do you agree?". If he
agrees or ignores the letter, they'll eventually get a V5C through. But
they still won't HAVE the car...

Miss A has the car at the moment, and it has been immobilised so Mr B
can't use his key. However, he'll have contacts with low loaders - and
low scruples - if he really wants it back.

Mmm. Definitely move it.

If they use those spare keys to "reclaim" it, then Mr B is going to
ring plod and report it nicked. Since his name's on the V5C, they're
going to go with that.

He'd have to get insurance first...

Even better. For them.

Adrian wrote:
PM ("PM" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Here's the situation:

Miss A and Mr B have lived together for around 12 years.

A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a
car. This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back.
This is a major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is
unknown whether there is a receipt for the car.

The car is registered in Mr B's nameand was used by Mr B as the family
car. Miss A does not drive.

Recently the relationship between Miss A and Mr B broke down, to the
extent that Mr B no longer lives with Miss A. There is a huge amount of
bad feeling on both sides, and for the purposes of this post let's
assume a reconciliation won't happen.

Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it back
as part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house and she
holds the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.

But the V5C is in his name?

Who owns the vehicle?

No way to be certain without it going to court, but I'd say that Mr B had
the strongest claim at the mo.

If Miss A's parents can prove they paid the money for it - say by
showing a bank withdrawal for the £5k at the time the car was bought -
can they claim ownership?

I wouldn't have thought so - the loan would be unsecured on the car, just
the same as the bank wouldn't be able to repossess the car if you
defaulted on the £5k unsecured loan you'd taken out to buy it.

What's the car worth now?

Can the vehicle's registered keeper be re-assigned to be either Miss A
or Miss A's parents - none of whom drive - without the consent of Mr B?

Registered Keeper is, as DVLA take every opportunity to remind, nothing
to do with legal ownership. They can apply to get a V5C in their name,
but Mr B will get a letter from DVLA saying "Do you agree?". If he agrees
or ignores the letter, they'll eventually get a V5C through. But they
still won't HAVE the car...

If they use those spare keys to "reclaim" it, then Mr B is going to ring
plod and report it nicked. Since his name's on the V5C, they're going to
go with that.


No, they will not. Mr B cannnot prove it is his, as he hasn't GOT the
registrations docs. Which is not in itself a huge case, but the docs are
not proof of legal ownership.


Unless he cn prove ownership..that he supplied the actual money, or that
the money was freely gifted to him by Miss A's parents, he has very
little he can do.

Plod will wash his hnds of it and say that until and unless civil court
establishes ownership, there is no evidence for prosecution.


Ive been involved in similar cases, and my string advice, not hampered
be being part of the legal profession, is to get the car in a safe
place, and tell Mr B that there is 500 quid for his signature on a piece
of paper signing it over to Miss A, or a bloody long court case that
will cost him thousands and lead to him losing it anyway.





None of the family are the kind of people to sit down and discuss things
rationally.

Naturally...

Strikes me the most sensible next step is to go Small Claims on him for
half of the original loan. Of course, since it was all agreed verbally
only, there's probably not a lot of point in that.

x-posted to uk.legal

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:58:51 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:

PM ("PM" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it
back as part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house
and she holds the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.

But the V5C is in his name?

Yes - at her address.

Sorry, I'd missed that the car's actually at her place. So she's got
everything bar the name on the V5. Small but vital difference. I assumed
he'd taken it with him and was using it as his. In that case, I think I'd
definitely be getting it re-registered. The V5C is still at her address,
so he's not going to get a chance to object.


Then sell it.

"What car?"

The Natural Philosopher (The Natural Philosopher ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

If they use those spare keys to "reclaim" it, then Mr B is going to
ring plod and report it nicked. Since his name's on the V5C, they're
going to go with that.

No, they will not. Mr B cannnot prove it is his, as he hasn't GOT the
registrations docs.

£20 and a week or so, and he's got a replacement set - with his new
address on - from DVLA.

PM wrote:

Miss Ass is deminstrating why co-habitation is fraught with problems and
why lending money to someone without a written agreement is a really
silly idea. As usual, there's also an element of post relationship anger
and Parents Gullible no doubt what to hurt Mr ******* for the insult and
outrage to Daughter Miss Ass.

Insult, outrage, criminal damage to home and physical assault. So far.

Well trying to be objective. Firstly in relationships like these the
woman ends up going back to the man over and over again. Someone I know
has a female relative who spends most weekends in hospital and once a
year or so in intensive care. The longest she has been away from her Mr
******* is about three weeks and apaprently got a bigger kicking when
she went back. So the prognosis isn't great, she could end up back there
again.

As to the money, if he has no assets other than a £2K car they're never
going to gt £5K back, and from the sounds of it, he'll never agree to
make voluntary payments and will do whatever he can to avoid paying. If
they can't afford a lawyer they're screwed. If they could avoid a lawyer
I suspect that they wouldn't get a very favourable report on their
chances.

"EricP" wrote in message
...


The vehicle owner is the name on the license.


AFAICT the only document is the V5C which shows the registered keeper. There
is no legal documented proof of who the owner is.

Adrian wrote:

But the V5C is in his name?

Yes - at her address.

Sorry, I'd missed that the car's actually at her place. So she's got
everything bar the name on the V5. Small but vital difference. I assumed
he'd taken it with him and was using it as his. In that case, I think I'd
definitely be getting it re-registered. The V5C is still at her address,
so he's not going to get a chance to object.

I think I would be inclined to let him keep the depreciated asset, and
chase the loan instead!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm (John Rumm ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

I think I would be inclined to let him keep the depreciated asset, and
chase the loan instead!

"What loan?"

Adrian wrote:
John Rumm (John Rumm ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

I think I would be inclined to let him keep the depreciated asset, and
chase the loan instead!

"What loan?"

The money he borrowed from her parents and used to buy the car. It was
not a HP agreement - just an unsecured loan by the sounds of it. So how
he spent the money does not seem that relevant. That he did not repay it
is the real issue. (It depends a bit on if it was just "him" that
borrowed the money... probably more likely the couple borrowed it so you
may have difficulty assigning liability)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
EricP writes:
The vehicle owner is the name on the license.

What license?
Vehicle keeper is recorded on the registration document (V5?)
but it makes it very clear that this is nothing to do with
the legal owner, which DVLA don't record.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 24 Apr, 15:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
PM wrote:
Here's the situation:

Miss A and Mr B have lived together for around 12 years.

A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a car.
This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back. This is a
major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is unknown
whether there is a receipt for the car.

The car is registered in Mr B's nameand was used by Mr B as the family car.
Miss A does not drive.

Recently the relationship between Miss A and Mr B broke down, to the extent
that Mr B no longer lives with Miss A. There is a huge amount of bad feeling
on both sides, and for the purposes of this post let's assume a
reconciliation won't happen.

Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it back as
part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house and she holds
the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.

Who owns the vehicle?

Miss A's parents actually.

Doubt that very much. Much more likely that Miss A and Mr B jointly
own the car.


If Miss A's parents can prove they paid the money for it - say by showing a
bank withdrawal for the £5k at the time the car was bought - can they claim
ownership?

Yes.

No, the loan is not a secured loan; only if they successfully sued for
the loan repayment might there come any issue with forcing him to sell
assets to satisfy the judgement.


Can the vehicle's registered keeper be re-assigned to be either Miss A or
Miss A's parents - none of whom drive - without the consent of Mr B?

Yes. I think so.

Not lawfully, no - the existing registered keeper has to sign over the
registered keeper status.


None of the family are the kind of people to sit down and discuss things
rationally.

well the easy option here is that someone takes miss A's keys and drives
the vehicle away.

She sells it and signs the registration docs.

Practically, this might work. Legally, not though as she would be
committing a fraud by pretending to be the registered keeper (when she
is in fact not the registered keeper, just the joint owner).


another way is to phone up DVLC and get the address details changed and
* new registration sent, and then sign that from the new address.

Or simply sell the car and dont notify the DVLC.

This puts all the burden on r B to prove it is his. He only has
registration document, and that is not a legally binding ting.


My summary would be:-
A and B are joint owners of the car.
B is the registered keeper, but that is a position which gives
obligations to the keeper, not rights of ownership
A and B are probably both liable for the loan to be repaid (if a
contractual loan exists - but where is the consideration? Mum and Dad
agreed to loan cash (consideration) in return for what? Potentially a
promise of repayment, but that may not have existed)

So A owes £2500 and owns an asset of £1000. But the loan is unlikely
to be required to be repaid, so she owns an asset worth £1000
B owes £2500 (which parents want repaid) and owns an asset of £1000.

B's maximum exposure is therefore £2500, but parents should accept
£1500 plus the title to the car being gifted to A.

Matt

On 2008-04-24, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
EricP writes:
The vehicle owner is the name on the license.

What license?
Vehicle keeper is recorded on the registration document (V5?)
but it makes it very clear that this is nothing to do with
the legal owner, which DVLA don't record.

Who has the receipt for the purchase and whose name is on it?

John Rumm (John Rumm ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

I think I would be inclined to let him keep the depreciated asset, and
chase the loan instead!

"What loan?"

The money he borrowed from her parents and used to buy the car.

"What money? Prove it..." - it was only a verbal agreement, remember.
Worth the paper it's written on...

(It depends a bit on if it was just "him" that borrowed the money...
probably more likely the couple borrowed it so you may have difficulty
assigning liability)

Well, quite. That further muddies the waters.

matthew.larkin ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

So A owes £2500 and owns an asset of £1000. But the loan is unlikely to
be required to be repaid, so she owns an asset worth £1000 B owes £2500
(which parents want repaid) and owns an asset of £1000.

B's maximum exposure is therefore £2500, but parents should accept £1500
plus the title to the car being gifted to A.

Mmmm. Would such a loan from a commercial source not have A & B jointly
and severally liable? So A & B owe £5k, and if either does a runner, the
other remains liable for £5k.

As you pointed out, the car's a separate issue, since the loan wasn't
secured on it.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:0oidnUgxqrzjNI3VnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@plusnet...
Adrian wrote:
John Rumm (John Rumm ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

I think I would be inclined to let him keep the depreciated asset, and
chase the loan instead!

"What loan?"

The money he borrowed from her parents and used to buy the car. It was
not a HP agreement - just an unsecured loan by the sounds of it. So how
he spent the money does not seem that relevant. That he did not repay it
is the real issue. (It depends a bit on if it was just "him" that
borrowed the money... probably more likely the couple borrowed it so you
may have difficulty assigning liability)


They borrowed the money as a couple.
He is unlikely to pay anything back - he/they didn't while they had the car
(by the original verbal agreement it would mostly be paid back by now).

I get the impression the parents are resigned to not seeing all the money -
but to let B have the car is an unpalatable option.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
PM wrote:

Miss Ass is deminstrating why co-habitation is fraught with problems
and
why lending money to someone without a written agreement is a really
silly idea. As usual, there's also an element of post relationship
anger
and Parents Gullible no doubt what to hurt Mr ******* for the insult
and
outrage to Daughter Miss Ass.

Insult, outrage, criminal damage to home and physical assault. So far.

Well trying to be objective. Firstly in relationships like these the
woman ends up going back to the man over and over again.

Three times and counting.


Someone I know
has a female relative who spends most weekends in hospital and once a
year or so in intensive care. The longest she has been away from her Mr
******* is about three weeks and apaprently got a bigger kicking when
she went back. So the prognosis isn't great, she could end up back there
again.

As to the money, if he has no assets other than a £2K car they're never
going to gt £5K back, and from the sounds of it, he'll never agree to
make voluntary payments and will do whatever he can to avoid paying.


That's about the size of it. They would like to stop him keeping the car
though.

John Phillips wrote:
On 2008-04-24, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
EricP writes:
The vehicle owner is the name on the license.
What license?
Vehicle keeper is recorded on the registration document (V5?)
but it makes it very clear that this is nothing to do with
the legal owner, which DVLA don't record.

Who has the receipt for the purchase and whose name is on it?

Now we are getting somewhere.

wrote:
On 24 Apr, 15:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
PM wrote:
Here's the situation:
Miss A and Mr B have lived together for around 12 years.
A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a car.
This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back. This is a
major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is unknown
whether there is a receipt for the car.
The car is registered in Mr B's nameand was used by Mr B as the family car.
Miss A does not drive.
Recently the relationship between Miss A and Mr B broke down, to the extent
that Mr B no longer lives with Miss A. There is a huge amount of bad feeling
on both sides, and for the purposes of this post let's assume a
reconciliation won't happen.
Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it back as
part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house and she holds
the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.
Who owns the vehicle?
Miss A's parents actually.

Doubt that very much. Much more likely that Miss A and Mr B jointly
own the car.

If Miss A's parents can prove they paid the money for it - say by showing a
bank withdrawal for the £5k at the time the car was bought - can they claim
ownership?
Yes.

No, the loan is not a secured loan; only if they successfully sued for
the loan repayment might there come any issue with forcing him to sell
assets to satisfy the judgement.

what loan? they can easily say that they bought the car for him but
retained ownership.

With no documentation to the contrary, its a matter of interpretaion.

Can the vehicle's registered keeper be re-assigned to be either Miss A or
Miss A's parents - none of whom drive - without the consent of Mr B?
Yes. I think so.

Not lawfully, no - the existing registered keeper has to sign over the
registered keeper status.

None of the family are the kind of people to sit down and discuss things
rationally.
well the easy option here is that someone takes miss A's keys and drives
the vehicle away.

She sells it and signs the registration docs.

Practically, this might work. Legally, not though as she would be
committing a fraud by pretending to be the registered keeper (when she
is in fact not the registered keeper, just the joint owner).



another way is to phone up DVLC and get the address details changed and
new registration sent, and then sign that from the new address.

Or simply sell the car and dont notify the DVLC.

This puts all the burden on r B to prove it is his. He only has
registration document, and that is not a legally binding ting.


My summary would be:-
A and B are joint owners of the car.
B is the registered keeper, but that is a position which gives
obligations to the keeper, not rights of ownership
A and B are probably both liable for the loan to be repaid (if a
contractual loan exists - but where is the consideration? Mum and Dad
agreed to loan cash (consideration) in return for what? Potentially a
promise of repayment, but that may not have existed)

So A owes £2500 and owns an asset of £1000. But the loan is unlikely
to be required to be repaid, so she owns an asset worth £1000
B owes £2500 (which parents want repaid) and owns an asset of £1000.

B's maximum exposure is therefore £2500, but parents should accept
£1500 plus the title to the car being gifted to A.

Matt
I say take the car away and tell B that he isn't going to have use of
it, and its not his. And give him the option of 'sign it away for 500 or
dont sign and get nothing'

John Rumm wrote:
Adrian wrote:

But the V5C is in his name?

Yes - at her address.

Sorry, I'd missed that the car's actually at her place. So she's got
everything bar the name on the V5. Small but vital difference. I
assumed he'd taken it with him and was using it as his. In that case,
I think I'd definitely be getting it re-registered. The V5C is still
at her address, so he's not going to get a chance to object.

I think I would be inclined to let him keep the depreciated asset, and
chase the loan instead!


If you had a watertight case and zero court costs.


In reality, moving the car and trying to get the V5 reassigned, places
the burden on him to sue for it: mostly people cannot be arsed.

The parents can even drive it on DOV insurance.

There is sufficient doubt about who owns it to make stealing an
unprosecutable offence in this case.

Its a civil dispute over ownership.

HE wont pay 5k for a car worth 2.5k...

So they will never get their money back: without a contract they cant
prove it was a loan, and not a gift.

Likewise he cant prove it was a gift, not a loan, or not indeed money
supplied specifically to purchase a car to be owned by the parents for
use of their daughters shagbunny.

One amusing option that presents itself, is to get it stolen and set
fire to.

Park it up Arbury and leave the doors unlocked..

The Natural Philosopher (The Natural Philosopher ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Who has the receipt for the purchase and whose name is on it?

Now we are getting somewhere.

Not really.

Even in the unlikely event a receipt was handed over, and the vanishingly
unlikely event it was kept, do you really think it'd somehow carry legal
weight?

PM wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:0oidnUgxqrzjNI3VnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@plusnet...
Adrian wrote:
John Rumm (John Rumm ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

I think I would be inclined to let him keep the depreciated asset, and
chase the loan instead!
"What loan?"
The money he borrowed from her parents and used to buy the car. It was
not a HP agreement - just an unsecured loan by the sounds of it. So how
he spent the money does not seem that relevant. That he did not repay it
is the real issue. (It depends a bit on if it was just "him" that
borrowed the money... probably more likely the couple borrowed it so you
may have difficulty assigning liability)


They borrowed the money as a couple.
He is unlikely to pay anything back - he/they didn't while they had the car
(by the original verbal agreement it would mostly be paid back by now).

I get the impression the parents are resigned to not seeing all the money -
but to let B have the car is an unpalatable option.


So drive it somewhere else.

Yu have keys, so its not breaking and entering. It is not even taking a
car without the owners permission, since the owner is in dispute.


I think I would drive it straight to a garage, and ask them to change
the ignition key since' we think the other key has been stolen' ;-)

PM wrote:

That's about the size of it. They would like to stop him keeping the car
though.

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.

Adrian wrote:
The Natural Philosopher (The Natural Philosopher ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

If they use those spare keys to "reclaim" it, then Mr B is going to
ring plod and report it nicked. Since his name's on the V5C, they're
going to go with that.

No, they will not. Mr B cannnot prove it is his, as he hasn't GOT the
registrations docs.

£20 and a week or so, and he's got a replacement set - with his new
address on - from DVLA.

No. The DVLA wont send it to a new address on a 'lost V5' basis. I got a
duplicate when I threw mine out accidentally, but it was only a duplicate.


Otherwise,. I nick a car, tell them I am the same bloke wot registered
it, get a new one sent to *my* address, and sell the car,? not likely.

The Natural Philosopher (The Natural Philosopher ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

The parents can even drive it on DOV insurance.

None of "Family A", parents or Miss A, drive according to the original
post.

One amusing option that presents itself, is to get it stolen and set
fire to.

Probably a ton of H&S reasons why not...

The Natural Philosopher (The Natural Philosopher ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

No, they will not. Mr B cannnot prove it is his, as he hasn't GOT the
registrations docs.

£20 and a week or so, and he's got a replacement set - with his new
address on - from DVLA.

No. The DVLA wont send it to a new address on a 'lost V5' basis. I got a
duplicate when I threw mine out accidentally, but it was only a
duplicate.

I'd have expected "I've moved, and can't find the old V5 to change the
address" to be probably about the most common reason for issuing
replacements...

Otherwise,. I nick a car, tell them I am the same bloke wot registered
it, get a new one sent to *my* address, and sell the car,? not likely.

"Hello, yes, I've got this car that's on the stolen vehicle register, but
it IS mine, honest. Yes, Mr... Umm... Smith. Yep, that's me. Well, it's
spelt 'Brown', true, but pronounced Smith. Do feel free to send the
Stolen Vehicle Unit round to my new address, won't you?"

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:32:01 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

PM ("PM" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Here's the situation:

Miss A and Mr B have lived together for around 12 years.

A couple of years ago they borrowed £5k from Miss A's parents to buy a
car. This was a verbal agreement; none of the money has been paid back.
This is a major bone of contention - the parents want their money. It is
unknown whether there is a receipt for the car.

The car is registered in Mr B's nameand was used by Mr B as the family
car. Miss A does not drive.

Recently the relationship between Miss A and Mr B broke down, to the
extent that Mr B no longer lives with Miss A. There is a huge amount of
bad feeling on both sides, and for the purposes of this post let's
assume a reconciliation won't happen.

Mr B has said he is going to keep the car. Miss A's parents want it back
as part payment for the debt due. The car is at Miss A's house and she
holds the V5 and one of the two sets of keys.

But the V5C is in his name?

Who owns the vehicle?

No way to be certain without it going to court, but I'd say that Mr B had
the strongest claim at the mo.

If Miss A's parents can prove they paid the money for it - say by
showing a bank withdrawal for the £5k at the time the car was bought -
can they claim ownership?

I wouldn't have thought so - the loan would be unsecured on the car, just
the same as the bank wouldn't be able to repossess the car if you
defaulted on the £5k unsecured loan you'd taken out to buy it.

What's the car worth now?

Can the vehicle's registered keeper be re-assigned to be either Miss A
or Miss A's parents - none of whom drive - without the consent of Mr B?

Registered Keeper is, as DVLA take every opportunity to remind, nothing
to do with legal ownership. They can apply to get a V5C in their name,
but Mr B will get a letter from DVLA saying "Do you agree?". If he agrees
or ignores the letter, they'll eventually get a V5C through. But they
still won't HAVE the car...

If they use those spare keys to "reclaim" it, then Mr B is going to ring
plod and report it nicked. Since his name's on the V5C, they're going to
go with that.

None of the family are the kind of people to sit down and discuss things
rationally.

Naturally...

Strikes me the most sensible next step is to go Small Claims on him for
half of the original loan. Of course, since it was all agreed verbally
only, there's probably not a lot of point in that.

x-posted to uk.legal

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.

Chris S wrote:

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

And after thinking about it again, Mr B also has another option. If he
reports to the police that his car has been taken, the police don't even
have to prove theft in order to get a conviction.

Theft requires that the parents have the intent to permanently deprive
Mr B of the car. I'd say that if they had their wits about them they
could argue that they did not intend to steal the car, but to hold it to
force B to pay up and that they fully intended to return the car in good
condition. That is a reasonable defence to a charge of theft. However
the indication in previous posts is that they do intend to permanently
deprive B of the car which is theft.

However even if they do get it right WRT any statements made about
keeping the car or selling it on (i.e. deny that was their intent). They
can still be charged with "Taking Without Owner's Consent" the infamous
"TWOCing" it's far easier to get a conviction for TWOCing than it is to
get one for theft. Net result is still the same whoever took the car
gets a criminal record, DNA on database, etc.

If the parents have anything shady in their past, then getting arrested
for any reason could be a big mistake, since all new DNA samples are
searched against all extant scenes of crime samples. I'm not making
statements about whether they are likely to have a reason to want to
avoid being arrested, I'm saying they really need to think very
carefully about their actions. Not simply to react in anger because of
what has happened.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher (The Natural Philosopher ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

The parents can even drive it on DOV insurance.

None of "Family A", parents or Miss A, drive according to the original
post.

One amusing option that presents itself, is to get it stolen and set
fire to.

Probably a ton of H&S reasons why not...

Plus I doubt it's insured ATM anyway

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Chris S wrote:

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

And after thinking about it again, Mr B also has another option. If he
reports to the police that his car has been taken, the police don't even
have to prove theft in order to get a conviction.

Theft requires that the parents have the intent to permanently deprive
Mr B of the car. I'd say that if they had their wits about them they
could argue that they did not intend to steal the car, but to hold it to
force B to pay up and that they fully intended to return the car in good
condition. That is a reasonable defence to a charge of theft. However
the indication in previous posts is that they do intend to permanently
deprive B of the car which is theft.

Let's assume that Mr B will never pay anything. Then the parents are left
with a car they can't sell rotting away on their driveway.


However even if they do get it right WRT any statements made about
keeping the car or selling it on (i.e. deny that was their intent). They
can still be charged with "Taking Without Owner's Consent" the infamous
"TWOCing" it's far easier to get a conviction for TWOCing than it is to
get one for theft. Net result is still the same whoever took the car
gets a criminal record, DNA on database, etc.

Mr B is unlikely to talk to the police - at least, not any conversation
initiated by him.


If the parents have anything shady in their past, then getting arrested
for any reason could be a big mistake, since all new DNA samples are
searched against all extant scenes of crime samples. I'm not making
statements about whether they are likely to have a reason to want to
avoid being arrested, I'm saying they really need to think very
carefully about their actions. Not simply to react in anger because of
what has happened.

Indeed.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:
The Natural Philosopher (The Natural Philosopher ) gurgled
happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Who has the receipt for the purchase and whose name is on it?

Now we are getting somewhere.

Not really.

Even in the unlikely event a receipt was handed over, and the
vanishingly
unlikely event it was kept, do you really think it'd somehow carry legal
weight?

Yes, some. Civil cases are decided on a balance of probabilities.


If for example B's name ws on it, ther would be reasonable evidence the
cash was a gift to him to make the purchase, if Miss A's was on it,
almost a direct contradiction that he was in any way involved in its
ownership.

I mean, dos my putative chauffeur own the car registered to him that I
get him to drive me round in?


AFAIK there is no receipt - let's assume this for the sake of this
discussion.

B's name is on the V5C.

IMO the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' (who is by now fed up of public
transport and wants to buy his own wheels) would assume that B was the
owner.