Divorcing couples and their cars

legal updates

The vast majority of cases are not theft. They are civil disputes and for this reason we would initially recommend speaking to a solicitor or Citizens Advice.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

Our member sold a Jaguar, and more than 12 months later, the new owner discovered the car was HPI “stolen” when he came to part exchange it. This was not the case at the point of sale. The car had been reported as stolen by the previous owner some months after his wife had sold it during their particularly acrimonious divorce. 

His wife presumably considered it her property, although for divorce purposes a car is usually a matrimonial asset and divorcing couples are advised to agree between them what will become of their vehicle(s).

Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have been asked for advice where our member has become unwittingly involved, having purchased a vehicle from one half of a divorcing couple without the other knowing about it. 

West Yorkshire Police provide clear advice in this eventuality:

I’m having a dispute with an ex-partner or spouse about who owns the car

Whether a person is the owner of a vehicle is a question for a court to decide. 

Facts to consider are:

  • the way the person treats or uses the vehicle
  • whether they have insurance for it
  • whether they’ve spent money on its purchase and upkeep


A registration document (V5) is not proof of ownership. The DVLA make a point of saying that the person named on the V5 is not necessarily the owner. They are considered responsible for the vehicle by the police and DVLA, but the owner is the person who paid for the car, or to whom it was given as a gift.

Cars used by married couples are usually considered joint-owned.


Theft

Profit BoxDevelop your people like your business depends on it

What most people don’t know is that talent development doesn’t have to be complicated, high risk or expensive. Once they integrate key development stages, the results can be remarkable. Empower your team. Lead your industry. We’re your strategic learning partner, driving performance by moving skills forward.

It’s an offence for a person to dishonestly take property belonging to someone else with the intention of permanently depriving them of it.

It’s not considered dishonest if a person has a genuine belief that:

  • they have a legal right to the property
  • the other person would consent if they knew of the taking and the circumstances of it
  • the owner couldn’t be traced by taking what a court would consider reasonable steps


The vast majority of cases are not theft. They are civil disputes and for this reason we would initially recommend speaking to a solicitor or 
Citizens Advice. If they recommend reporting the matter to us, please call our non-emergency number 101.


Getting a car returned to you

If you’re the legal owner of the vehicle and your ex-partner or spouse has it, you can either:

  • require its return and seek a court order to this effect, or
  • sue them for its cost; you’ll need to seek legal advice from a solicitor to do this

Given the above advice, it is somewhat surprising that in our member’s case, the police considered the car stolen following the husband’s report and the car was marked as such by HPI. The police confirmed to our member they “had no interest” in the car, but conflictingly HPI claimed there to be an ongoing investigation, so would not remove the HPI. It is extremely frustrating when administration goes wrong but unfortunately, it does happen. 

We believe the marker should be removed and the husband should be speaking to his divorce lawyer about a remedy in the financial settlement. 

Polly DaviesLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Finance Company Unhappy with Court Ruling

The court found that the claim and particulars were inadequate and the finance company was told they had to submit a compliant claim/particulars.

Has your trade vehicle been clamped or removed and impounded?

Motor traders enjoy concessions not available to the general public, namely not having to licence or declare SORN for vehicles…

Be careful of what you promise

Estoppel by representation is a rule that prevents someone from denying a set of facts or a statement that they previously represented as being true.

Disclose or not to disclose, that is the question

It is imperative that you know what is required to be disclosed, when to disclose the documents, and what your legal duty is both before proceedings and when a claim is issued.

Court Rules Against ‘Serial Returner’ in Distance Selling Dispute

It is clear from his evidence that his true intention was that he wanted the ability to reject the car at a time of his choosing.

Detailed records avoid post-sale issues

The Claimant was only entitled to compensation for the cost of repairs to the locks, which were considered likely to have been faulty at the point of sale and was awarded £385.

Claimant failed to satisfy the burden of proof

No real evidence to suggest the extant problems with his vehicle were in any way related to the repairs that had been undertaken

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.