The theft is a negative, the recovery a positive; they cancel each other out, right?
Wrong.
A vehicle found in the possession of an innocent purchaser will result in that person being deprived of the vehicle they have purchased in good faith. Often, this loss is not even recorded as a crime statistic, or any assistance offered by the Police. We can provide some practical advice with a free ‘fact sheet’.
Whether the person in possession of the vehicle is permitted to retain it is largely dependent on the attitude, policy and requirements of the Police. Some officers appear to seize, ‘because they can’. Having done so, there have been occasions when the recovered vehicle is simply given to another without any forensic examination.
I have lost count of the number of occasions I have tried to assist innocent purchasers only to be told an officer took the car but the purchase receipt and service book remain, were not seized i.e. not taken for forensic (fingerprint) examination.
Of those vehicles with the police, not all have their (false) number plates removed for examination, which you would think is the minimum enquiry.
You cannot acquire title to stolen property. This follows the legal principle ‘nemo dat quod non habet’; a person cannot give what is not his or hers to give. If a thief steals a car, he or she do not possess good title to sell to anyone else, even if the subsequent buyer has no knowledge of the original theft and pays a full market price for the goods (i.e. has no cause for any suspicion). The ‘nemo dat’ rule is reflected in Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
So who really requires help and support in such circumstances? The innocent purchaser is often ignored; the purchase might not have occurred on the seizing officers ‘patch’, it is a crime ‘linked to the original’, are both explanations I have heard to avoid recording the innocent purchaser as a victim, or to avoid the crime against them being investigated. And it is fraud … who cares?