Re: Title in Vehicles Acquired by Fraud / Deception
Some while ago [redacted – AVCIS officer] asked whether we would provide a document to assist constabularies/ stations about vehicles that have been obtained by deception/fraud. I understand he had the facility to circulate all stations and wished to provide guidance about this potentially problematic area. Due to changes at AVCIS, whilst I have some notes, these were never forwarded, the document was never created.
We are seeing an increase in the number of vehicles obtained by fraud reported to us via:
Mycartoolbox.com
Car-crime.com
MyCarCheck (for whom we handle claims)
I am currently in correspondence with two Constabularies about their actions. Vehicles taken from the original victim by fraud have been seized from innocent purchasers and in one case, returned to the original victim. In both cases, the Constabulary staff have referred me to NEM -vs- Jones in support of their decision not to let the innocent purchaser keep the vehicle – which the constabulary hands back to the original victim. I do not believe NEM vs. Jones to be applicable! Indeed, this now appears to be giving the constabularies concerned some difficulty – they have yet to respond to my requests for an explanation.
It appears that constabularies think simply with regard to criminal legislation. However, making a decision with regard to title requires an understanding of civil process; I submit that the considerations when a vehicle has been taken by ‘theft’ are very different to those where a vehicle has been acquired by ‘fraud’.
I am concerned that constabularies are inappropriately taking vehicles from innocent purchasers, who have best title. This results in:
1. The constabulary seizing the vehicle, often not the constabulary dealing with the original complaint of fraud, acting inappropriately. The seizing police are usually the innocent purchasers own Service [constabulary]:
2. The person from whom the vehicle is taken has a very poor impression of their own constabulary, plus the one to whom the original crime was reported.
3. The innocent purchasers being subjected to unnecessary, avoidable, distress, inconvenience and financial loss inappropriately.
4. Constabularies finding themselves involved in title disputes, potentially having to store vehicles for excessive periods.
5. The victim from whom the original vehicle was taken, having been reunited with it, then finding themselves embroiled in a civil dispute.
6. Where the original victim is a motor trader (and the nature of their business means they are commonly the original victim), if a constabulary hands a vehicle back to them understandably they sell the vehicle on. Their customer can then find find themselves party to civil proceedings.
7. Formal complaints being raised against the constabularies concerned.
Is the offer still open for us to create a document, to provide assistance?
Yours
Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:19 PM
To: Vehicle Fraud [AVCIS]
Subject: Title in Vehicles Acquired by Fraud / Deception
AVCIS
Hopkins Building
1 Leamington Road
Ryton on Dunsmore
Coventry CV8 3EN
FAO Superintendent [redacted]
Dear Sir
I understand my concerns in respect of the scenario described below [above], involving vehicles obtained by fraud, was passed to you in late November 2012.
I would appreciate your response.
Sent: 25 April 2013 08:59
Subject: FW: Title in Vehicles Acquired by Fraud / Deception
We take on board your comments and are more than happy for a relevant document/toolkit being produced in relation to ‘Innocent Purchasers’. However we believe each case should be considered on an individual basis and the circumstances involved as to how innocent a purchaser is, with all options open including discretion, P.A.C.E provisions, court and the siezing (sic) of the vehicle.
My contact details are below and I have included the ‘Head of Unit’ into this e-mail.
Sent: 29 April 2013 12:13
To: AVCIS
Subject: RE: Title in Vehicles Acquired by Fraud / Deception
Dear {redacted],
Each and every case is unique, it would be foolhardy to consider any case other than on its individual merits and we are not suggesting this. However, consistency will likely be beneficial to all.
We would expect to see proportionality applied though performance indicators and priorities may have an effect. We are certainly not suggesting someone other than ‘innocent’ is permitted to benefit but in the cases we have before us (the problems appears to be current, on the increase), in not one has the constabulary described the party in possession as other than innocent. Despite this, the vehicle is seized.
The problem is almost always compounded (the complaints doubled) because the constabulary recording the FRAUD causes the constabulary stopping the vehicle or approaching the registered keeper, to seize. This latter constabulary, likely because a LoS report appears on PNC inaccurately suggesting the vehicle is STOLEN, appears to acting in the absence of pertinent facts.
The concern is that a constable / constabulary (in our experience) is currently unable to consider the merits of each case appropriately because they possess or are given inaccurate or incomplete data. As a result they consider the vehicles as though ‘stolen’ and innocent purchasers are having vehicles taken away from them inappropriately or unnecessarily. This results in constabularies becoming embroiled in complaints needlessly and there is a further erosion of confidence in the police.
Different constabulary’s adopt different approaches but most appear to be confusing property alleged to have been obtained by fraudulent means with that acquired by theft. In the latter, title does not pass (save in exceptional circumstances) in the former (fraud) title can and often does pass
You mention ‘toolkit’. This was a matter that was raised when I first visited AVCIS some years ago. Whilst is it likely on your wish list to this day, the issue appeared to be (and likely is currently?) one of resources (cash). Mindful of this, we created a secure area on our web site and added some ‘tools’ that we thought may be useful – feel free to register at www.cmaclaims.co.uk . Your current requirements may be worth exploring.
As for a document, we have a form provided via a web site www.mycartoolbox.com which provides free information to innocent purchasers of vehicles with an adverse history. The ‘taken by deception’ document could likely be tweaked to be more pertinent to an officer. Subject to approving the content would you be content to circulate this to constabularies?