442 replies to this topic

[Redslur]

Interesting thread indeed. In ACT you can ring through to the Vehicle inspection technical unit and request an engine number/ chassis number check to see if there are any nasty surprises prior to purchasing. They will only divulge the staus of that number but will not provide previous owners details etc. I would have thought you could do that in all states and Territories?

[Tyre biter]

One question which has appeared in this thread a fee times which would be useful to have answered by VCS is that of ownership and title.

 

Q: If a car is found to have been stolen back in the day, or it's identity cannot be established - who owns the car it?

 

I can see both sides of the coin;

• The old owner had it stolen - notwithstanding whose hands it has gone through and what monies have changed hands for it - the owner never gave up their ownership.
• The new owner has paid for the car and done so in good faith albeit it unwittingly.
• To cloudy matters further, the car has likes changed hands in between a few times with each new owner assuming they had clear title.

Some threads here have suggested knowledge of cars being seized by police for good, and we assume they were subsequently returned to the original owners.

Other threads depict that regardless of the car's stolen provenance being established, the new owners were allowed to keep it.

 

Keen to hear what VCS has to say about the law nowadays re: ownership in these sort of circumstances?

 

Cheers, TB

 

 

If an insurance claim was paid out on the stolen vehicle then the insurance company will be the legal owner and they will want their property returned.

 

I get that S pack

 

The question however, which is unresolved to date being: who at law gets to keep the car - regardless of what any of the parties actually wish for.  Is it the previous owner or insurance company who paid out a policy, or is it the new owner who bought it un-whittingly and (seemingly) appropriately.

 

I anticipate that if the law says the former, this might deter folks from pro-actively coming forward with their which isn't 'quite right' so to speak in terms of their enquiries re: the provenance.  Not that it shouldn't go to the former - it was/is their car after all to whom their ownership was never relinquished.  Having said that, I can see the other side of the coin in a person who buys a car after making diligent enquiry, buys it for a price which doesn't suggest to any reasonable person they were receiving stolen or misappropriated property, and then tips in a whole shed-load of coin to restore it.

 

As an example; that lady who was on here a little while ago about her LC/LJ who folks thought might be property of her (ex)husband or communal property but tendered for sale without his knowledge.  In that scenario, he never relinquished ownership and so the car should rightfully remain his, but yet the purchaser also needs protection from a criminal or civil wrong other than merely a finding of civil damages.  And as I understand it, this is where the law is at times inconsistently applied at best, and outright dubious in its intent at worst - this is what I am enquiring about - what does the law say if (God forbid) one of us bring a car to their attention and it comes up as being a re-birthed stolen or questionable vehicle? 

 

I was hoping from some advice from VICPOL VCS as to how they'd apply the law in circumstances like this, and perhaps even why they'd apply it in whatever manner they do is all?

 

Cheers, TB

[DanWA]

Wonder when they will investigate in QLD

[wot179]

There is no ambiguity here.
If a car is stolen and retrieved it will be passed back to its rightful owner, which will be either the individual who lost the car, or in the case of an insurance payout,the insurance company.

[S pack]

Wonder when they will investigate in QLD

They probably should investigate in WA also!

[EunUCh]

post #55 paragraph 4

[Ice]

They probably should investigate in WA also!

Settle down baby steps first get the Mexicans sorted out then they should go from there

[Shiney005]

^^^^^^ Heh Heh Heh Heh

[rexy]

Always suspected the sandgropers were a dodgier than average bunch...
Hugs and kisses!

[Shiney005]

40,000 cars stolen in WA in five years. Well I'll be blowed.

[Ice]

40,000 cars stolen in WA in five years. Well I'll be blowed.

Were keeping the black market alive shhh you guys
want some cheap parts

http://www.perthnow....f477a5d4de9f026  

And you pull ya head in

[Shiney005]

Nah Gene, we look like amateurs compared to the tram spotters.
http://www.smh.com.a...201-11xsbm.html

[N/A-PWR]

We need to be good at taking the starter motor off the engine, now-a-days. 

 

Have a safe bolted into the boot to put the starter motor in as well.  

add half an hour a day to each trip

[Ice]

Nah Gene, we look like amateurs compared to the tram spotters.http://www.smh.com.a...201-11xsbm.html

Yeah i know reminds of the old saying
clean the shit up in your back yard first

[Shiney005]

Well with the tenth most stolen car in WA being the Hyundai Excel the car thieves obviously don't know what it is.

[Tyre biter]

There is no ambiguity here.
If a car is stolen and retrieved it will be passed back to its rightful owner, which will be either the individual who lost the car, or in the case of an insurance payout,the insurance company.

Wish that were the case WOT.

Truth is, IMO it depends on the jurisdiction - both statute and case law, and also common law precedent like 'claim of right' differ throughout the Commonwealth.

And so no, it is far, far, far from the clean-cut position you assert.

 

And this is what I want VICPOL to speak to - they are inviting folks to bring out their dead and saying they will refer interstate matters raised by forum members but have, as yet, failed to respond to this issue and how they might influence all these differing laws and precedents.  Kudos to them of course, but this approach (seemingly) lacks foresight and reliable follow through, or (more likely) the question I raise is not something they can speak to.  No issue from me - but they should announce as much: "Guys if you tell us of your car which is questionable and you live interstate, we will refer the matter and goodness knows where you stand per ownership" - something of that ilk.  Jeepers they haven't (as yet) responded to their own jurisdictional approach.

 

Again, the truth is because the criminal and civil law is the opposite to what you suggest WOT but nonetheless, I am keen to be schooled - tell us, what statute or precedent do you rely upon when making the assertion that you have? Not having a dig here - this is a genuine question whereby I am keen to hear what you can advise.

 

Cheers, TB

[Rockoz]

I came up with a theory on the Hyundai Excels years ago when they first hit the market hard.

We were putting out about 2 every week for about a year. Maybe an exaggeration but not a huge one.

Theory is this.

Young guy gets his first job.

Mum and Dad hound him to buy a good car instead of a shitter now that he can "afford it"

So out he goes like a good young fellow and signs up for the drive away no more to pay deal.

Things go okay until he turns 18 and wants to go party with his mates.

They have cheap cars and no repayments.

He cant afford to party like his mates so the car gets "stolen" and burnt out.

Given that most of the other cars had parts stripped off and none of the Hyundais did seemed suss.

Plus where they were usually torched required someone else to drive them home. Very remote.

 

Thats my theory.

Plus the insurance companies used to hound me for reports on Hyundais but not other cars.

[TerrA LX]

Very good point. The NEVDIS system can provide information on engine/chassis/VIN numbers I believe, but I think access is limited to persons working in a government Road Transport or registry office. An engine I was looking at fitting to one of my cars was flagged in the NSW RMS system, turned out it was last registered in a car that was recorded as stolen in September 1991. It was only thanks to the help I received from someone I know who works in a RMS office that I didn't proceed to buy & fit this engine to my car & therefore potentially lose money, my car or both. I did mention in a thread not so long ago that I believe NEVDIS should be accessible to the general public, albeit for a fee or whatever. It isn't uncommon for someone embarking on a classic car build up these days to start with a car/engine that has not been on the road for some time & therefore details to wit will not be recorded on any REVS or other such records. The engine I ended up using had close to $20,000 spent on it by the time I had it running in the car, that is a lot of money in most anyone's books to lose because I otherwise might not have been able to establish the provenance before spending such an amount, only to find out when attempting to register the car with afore mentioned engine.

Not picking on you or singling out but a point in case, if the system was available to everybody, on line, would that not make a data base for all to check their handy work against?

One would think this is the reason why the general public should NOT have access to this infomation.