Have you bought from Midlands Superbikes recently?

I got my ZX from Midlands but got it a yr ago so hopefully wont be part of this although they did say it belonged to a friend of the garage.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

So is that the case regardless of circumstances? ie: if a motor trader sells a stolen car, the person who bought retains good title? Or are there certain restrictions around this?

After speaking to a local Sheriff, Police officers of various rank, a couple of Solicitors and a few blokes down the pub (and then sorting through the conflicting information) the situation as I understand it is;

If the car is stolen then it might be recovered by the rightful owner and the dealer should compensate the purchaser.

If the dealer sold a car with outstanding HP on it then the innocent purchaser can retain good title.

In my customers case, the car wasn't stolen and, because it was sold through the trade, it didn't matter that my client kept a hold of the V5 (he mistakenly thought keeping hold of this document meant that the car couldn't be moved on without him knowing about it). So, again, the purchaser has good title. The fact that my customer has no money is merely a business deal gone wrong - no crime committed.

Originally Posted by punyXpress

and does Scottish law differ from t'rest?

The definition of theft is different in Scotland. In England it has to be your intention to permanently deprive someone of their property whereas in Scotland it's not necessary to prove that (which is why private wheel clamping has long been judged as theft in Scotland and therefore illegal).

I would have thought the English law definition makes it even harder for the previous bike owners in the Midland Superbikes case. It would be hard to prove that the firm intended to permanently keep their cash.

The regulations on HP are within the Consumer Credit Act so apply to the whole UK.

Originally Posted by TamSV

I would have thought the English law definition makes it even harder for the previous bike owners in the Midland Superbikes case. It would be hard to prove that the firm intended to permanently keep their cash.

Isn't that TWOC? The "new keeper" would then be guilty as would MSB as they had knowledge that this offence was being committed.

In reality if theft means that you intended to "permanently deprive the owner" then selling a bike would prove that this was your intention, surely?

I emailed the auditors at about 15:00 they got back within 1 hr saying as I bought my bike in 2009 it's unlikely my bike will be in list of bikes.

Originally Posted by B1k3R

Isn't that TWOC? The "new keeper" would then be guilty as would MSB as they had knowledge that this offence was being committed.

In reality if theft means that you intended to "permanently deprive the owner" then selling a bike would prove that this was your intention, surely?

The new keeper wouldn't know that Midlands Superbikes didn't intend to give the money to the new owner.

Selling the bike does not prove that you intended to deprive the owner of the proceeds of that sale. Though this may have been the intention, that doesn't prove it. You would need something like an internal memo, that said, "don't send Mr Smith the cash for his bike that we just sold, we may go into administration soon so we may as well keep the money". as proof of that.

I agree with the first part, just another victim. Not sure about the second part. "Intent" is a big word.

I think that this could be more confusing if MSB sold a SOR bike as per the owners instructions or didn't sell it/sold it not as per the owners instructions. If sold as per the owners instructions, them the owner would just be a creditor due to "adopting the transaction" (Sale of goods act 18.4.a). If not sold/undersold they the owner would still have clear title. Nice that law is so cut and dried!

I pity anyone who has fallen victim. Sales of goods act here if anyone is really bored

[TamSV]

If the proceeds of the sale went through the books correctly then that would support the assumption that they intended to pay the vehicles previous owner if the business had survived.

If, on the other hand, the business owner had put the cash in his own pocket then that would suggest fraud.

If a SOR bike was unsold then I would expect the owner will get their bike back (although what seems right isn't always what happens in practice).

Well I'll never sell a bike SOR through a dealer.

Originally Posted by TamSV

If the proceeds of the sale went through the books correctly then that would support the assumption that they intended to pay the vehicles previous owner if the business had survived.

If, on the other hand, the business owner had put the cash in his own pocket then that would suggest fraud.

If a SOR bike was unsold then I would expect the owner will get their bike back (although what seems right isn't always what happens in practice).

Lets hope so.

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Well I'll never sell a bike SOR through a dealer.

+1 for that.

Company's go to the wall everyday and it is a sad thing to see. Very easy to fall into the trap of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Personally I would have had a huge sale on the owned stock (bikes plus anything else) to get some cash flow first but it may have been too late for that. The thing is, who would want to take on the name of MSB if the liquidators are looking to sell the company as a going concern?

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

The new keeper wouldn't know that Midlands Superbikes didn't intend to give the money to the new owner.

Selling the bike does not prove that you intended to deprive the owner of the proceeds of that sale. Though this may have been the intention, that doesn't prove it. You would need something like an internal memo, that said, "don't send Mr Smith the cash for his bike that we just sold, we may go into administration soon so we may as well keep the money". as proof of that.

Agree. For it to be a 'crime', in my limited knowledge, you have to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Doesn't sound like much, but very difficult to actually do.

In terms of getting an insolvency practitioner to pursue a director for fraud, rather than just wind up the company or sell on, very rare. Very strong suspiscion of a person being up to dodgy dealings just is not enough to see justice done. Sucks but true.

That's why Watchdog continues to make a living out of exposing people who suck money from a company, don't pay creditors (and probably put them out of business), liquidate and phoenix up a new company. It's the price we pay for living in a market economy that encourages entrepreneurs to take risks and provides a safe vehicle (a limited company) for it all to go belly up in.

Now then, MY new company will happily sell your bike on your behalf, double quick like, buyers waiting, anyone got an s1000rr they need rid of? All above board, I'll keep you updated....(queue 'Only Fools and Horses' theme tune).