Not compulsory, what can be done to ‘encourage’ such searches? I understand that about 1 in 10 potential buyers check a vehicle pre-purchase to see if it is stolen, on finance or a previous total loss.
When is the innocent purchaser of a stolen vehicle not innocent?
Since 1995, I have handled 100’s of claims made against vehicle information suppliers who have conveyed a ‘not RECORDED stolen’ status against a VRM, but in respect of which, it transpires the vehicle was stolen. The reasons are often straightforward; the crooks know their way around systems, and clones or vehicles taken by fraud are hard to identify.
However, several claimants have been outright crooks; their enquiry of the vehicle was intended to obtain a contractual Guarantee yet they already knew the vehicle had been stolen (because they were party to the theft!). If the vehicle is subsequently seized by police and returned to the owner, they intend to claim the value of the vehicle against the information supplier, a fraud.
Our experience means that we are very efficient at identifying these attempted frauds, but an average member of the public might rely upon the piece of paper waved in front of them by the fraudster, which apparently confirms good title.
It is time to revisit the ‘innocent purchaser’ status of people, to educate them about the importance of carrying out vital checks before parting with their money:
- Pre-purchase enquiries;
- Obtaining a purchase receipt with the full identity and address of the seller;
- Insuring pre-purchase;
- On-line MoT check
- Photographs, using a mobile phone – date/time stamped … with GPS?
All of the above will help educate people about the importance of self-protection facilities in the event of a problem, of the reasonable steps to take, that can be taken … if only to avoid suspicion being placed upon them if a stolen vehicle is found in their possession.
In 2013, we provided an online reporting facility for those who found themselves possessing a stolen vehicle. A slide from the presentation is as follows:
The authorities showed no interest in the facility. Indeed, we were approached by a constabulary who sought to ascertain why we were comparing reported stolen vehicles with their own register – they were not happy!
Another argued that the purchaser (of a stolen vehicle) had paid below market value, and they did not intend to investigate this ‘gambling’ issue.