The only time I used this method (on behalf of one of the offspring who'd moved abroad), it was through a garage some 40 or 50 miles from where I live. A salesman arranged to collect the car, sending a two-man team, and within a short period it was being quite widely advertised, attracting attention from as far as 150 miles away in the London area.
Within hours of the car eventually being sold for just over £7,000, the salesman I had dealt with drove to my home and presented me with the cheque.
No, it didn't bounce, but the decision to sell on commission did bring an end to a frustrating period of finding no interested buyers...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
Already informed PU. The main director of the company is a regular customer of theirs it appears.
|
|
|
|
Winding up order perhaps?
No point - a company which operates like that will most likely have share capital of £2 and assets consisting of a shortish (and valueless) lease of the garage premises (the landlord most likely being either a mate, spouse or other family member of one or other of the directors), and some clapped-out office equipment. The directors will, oddly enough, not actually own anything in the way of personal assets, either, so the only result of a winding-up order is that the petitioning creditor incurs irrecoverable legal costs.
Cynical, moi? :-)
|
|
Shouldn't the car be reported as stolen then , and recovered off the poor person who bought it?
|
Shouldn't the car be reported as stolen then , and recovered off the poor person who bought it?
My thoughts but for the existance of a contract between the owner and vendor, the contract details would be interesting.
|
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.
It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit.
|
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.
Difficult to prove the intention, "I took it on in good faith gov, sold the motor, used the readies to pay some bills cos I knew I had some more cash on the way though I was done, it recked my business, so I aint got any money to pay the poor fella for 'is Jag".
|
A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other's authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights.
It looks clear cut to me! << not a lawyer though ;)
|
|
Yes, report it as stolen.
|
|
You'd imagine (but not hope too much) that a visit from Plod suggesting a fraud/theft had been reported might shake the guy into his senses, and he'd "find" the money to pay up and have the complaint withdrawn.
|
|
Lawman is too much of a pro, but I know of some people who would offer to sort this out "the old-fashioned way"...now that would concentrate his mind.
|
Cheddar has it about right. The person who subsequently bought the car presumably bought it in good faith and paid a fair price for it.
The trader has done what was asked of him - he sold the car. Only problem was he kept the cash!
The legal term is 'mens rea' which roughly translated means that the intention was formed at the outset of the proceedings.
To establish that then the trader would have to be interviewed. For that to happen then the vehicle has to be reported stolen and a Crime Report raised.
As Cheddar puts it after interview there may be insufficiant evidence to prove 'mens rea' and the trader would not be prosecuted. If that happens then all you are left with is a Civil Debt against the trader. Even if he did cough it then steps would have to be taken to have the vehicle recovered from its current owner and perhaps a decision made under the 'Police Property Act' as to who should keep the vehicle.
I dont know whether the insurance company would accept that the car has been stolen.
One way or another there is a loser and it aint the trader.
--
Fullchat
|
And most insurance policies won't payout if you're conned in a sale. DirectLine:-
"WHAT IS NOT COVERED
This policy does not provide cover for the following.
3 Losing money because you are deceived, or do not receive all the money you agree when you sell the car."
|
|
Don't think reporting the car stolen will help.
Sounds more like a breach of contract and a civil debt ie. bounced cheque
|
|
What about Obtaining Property by Deception then ? (especially if there;s a history)
|
>As Cheddar puts it after interview there may be insufficiant evidence to prove 'mens rea'..
According to Lawman he's done it before.
"Research has revealed that the director of the company which operates the garage
has form for this, and the trading standards are all over him."
If he's been pulled once for similar conduct then it isn't a mistake.
If plod can't use that as evidence of intent, or a court won't accept it, then something needs to change.
Kevin...
|
I would have thought that Obtaining Property by Deception would still require 'intent'. Who has had their property obtained by deception? The owner allowed the trader the right to sell the vehicle. The purchaser legitimately bought the vehicle from the trader. Had the vehicle been stolen then the trader would have commited a deception but it wasn't. Perhaps 'evidence of similar fact ' may reveal some previous dodgy dealing but unless the complaint is given a run then none of that will come out.
All in all I think its a bit thin. Not fair but who said the law was fair??
--
Fullchat
|
Deception occurs when the trader represents to the client that the car is to be sold and that he will pay the cheque to the complainant, knowing that he will not have the funds to do so and/or that he does not intend to pay the money over. Evidence of dishonest intent could be gathered by way of the complaint's statement that the trader maintained that the car was being test driven, inspected etc., even after it had been sold.
There is also no need for any physical property to be transferred - pecuniary advantage is sufficient. either under s.16 (2) (c) Theft Act 1968 (deceiving the client in order to earn money for himself) or s.2 Theft Act 1978 (evasion of debt arising on the sale by deception).
Incidentally there is an argument that an appropriation occurs under s.1 (1) of the Theft Act in that appropriation means "assuming the rights of an owner" although given that the trader was given permission to sell the car, it is arguable that he did not actually assume any rights he had not already been expressly given.
Practically though I do accept it would be difficult to get the police to investigate this and to get the CPS to prosecute although apparentliy flimsier cases have succeeded at trial.
|
A bounced cheque constitutes a criminal offence and, what's more, in many countries.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
Irrespective of previous form if the contract Lawman refers to says something like "Dodgy Motors agrees to sell the car for you and pay you the proceeds minus commision........." and it is signed by both parties then the part of the contract that has been breached is the paying of proceeds and not the selling of the car so the Police and Trading Standards are unlikely to get the new car back off the new owner who bought in good faith.
|
I did read a similar story where the garage went bust. The car - for sale on a commision basis - was sold to pay some of the garage's debts and its owner received nothing. There was no legal way for the 'owner' to recover the car from its new owner.
I don't believe the car's been stolen in this case.
I hope your client gets his money, but I don't think it will be easy.
I would never, ever use this method to sell a car (or bike)
|
You can recover this - just takes a bit of work !
I maybe a bit fuzzy on the exact legal terminology here - your local County Court will help.
First issue claim in the County Court - you'll get a CCJ against them. This garage probably won't pay at this point, by the sounds of it.
Find the High Court Sheriff for the area, and get the judgement transferred to him. A High Court Sheriff has full powers to enter & reclaim property to the value of. I suspect your client will get his money back ASAP when the High Court Bailiffs turn up ! These AREN'T like normal bailiffs - they have full powers of entry (non of that if-you-don't-let-them-in-they-can't-enter stuff).
|
|
A CCJ etc is only relevant if the business is still trading and has any assetts.
|
|
What needs to be confirmed first is if the business is a Ltd company, sole trader or partnership.
|
Ok, to answer some of the points
The garage is a limited company. It is almost certainly potless. There is no point instructing baillifs unless there are assets to seize.
Title has almost certainly pased to the buyer. The garage is a mercantile agent for these purposes, and as long as the buyer wasn't in on any scam, the buyer gets the car.
My client is either owed a civil debt (unsecured) or he has a proprietory claim (a trust claim) on the purchase money. That is no good if the money has dissappeared or been paid into an overdrawn bank account.
It is not an offence to bounce a cheque. If can be an offence if the person buys something with a cheque that he knows will bounce, but it is not an offence to pay an existing debt with a cheque that subsequently bounces.
My client is in a tight spot. The normal legal channels are extremely unlikely to get him anywhere, and all of them will be expensive. He wishes he'd not left the V5 with the garage adn he wishes he'd done all these checks at the time, rather than after the event.
|
If your client is unwilling to take legal action due to the likelyhood of recovering his debt (and your costs), is there any legitimate reason why he can't "go public" on the story?
A well written "sob story" in the local rag might be the kind of publicity the garage owner would resent. It might be in his interests to pay the debt, even by stages, rather than have the local rag/radio/TV station sniffing round asking why he can't pay a pensioner/single mother/disabled person (delete as appropriate) the money they are owed.
|
And then there's Watchdog, Rogue Traders etc. at a national level. Just a mention of them may be enough...
Feel free to contact me via the mods if you want some help - I write loads of press releases, and can usually find my way to the journo who will take an interest.
|
If the garage offers any finance then they must be registered with the Office of Fair Trading to have a Credit Licence. I would suggest you contact them, as without this licence most of his business will disappear as he would only be able to do cash sales.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
This is not the kind of bloke who will be worried about bad press. A similar enterprise shut down about 14 months ago in similar circumstances, with wide local press coverage. Hasn't stopped him doing it again.
I am sure this will be all over the press shortly (I suspect my client is not alone) but this will not put any money in my client's pocket.
The credit licence point is a good one, but I have tried this before and the relevant department of the DTI is about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
|
|
Companies House may like to investigate his suitability to be a Director? Or does his wife/brother front it with CH?
|
Lawman - This guy doesn't operate in north Leicestershire does he? Many years ago I knew a prestige car dealership that operated in these parts. The individual was being procecuted for handling stolen goods in around 94 IIRC. If it is this one then I have met him!
A friend of mine is in a similar siuation to the dodgy car dealer here. Only his business failure is 100% genuine. He was a director of a ltd company that went bust due to an ex partner mismanaging a couple of large contracts. Contractors were even telling my mate that this guy was ponsing about the site teling everyone how much he earns for doing sweet fa. His business got hit with late completion charges that wiped out all the profits and more and completely knackered his cashflow. What didn't help was that his ex partner, who latterly went self employed working for him, decided to hide the company van down a dodgy backstreet where it got trashed, losing the company more money.
Just before the company stopped trading this loser then got a Industrial Tribunal award against him for £4k, apparently earned when he was working self employed. My mate's business is currently worth £80, so the award is worth just that at the most - assuming that VAT and an outstanding supplier can't be bothered with that. It seems a shame for the supplier who is owed a similar amount as they have supplied the goods in good faith, but the ex partner IMO has got what he deserved.
My mate on the other hand can wind the company up knowing that he can't lose any more than the capital he put into it or any that he used to guarantee the loans etc.
|
|
I suppose the only consoloation is that in time, this guy will rip off the wrong guy and get a damn good hiding with a baseball bat.
|
|
|
|
|
