No finance recorded on HPI but there actually was?

legal_updates

This article might give you several “Twitchings”.

Author: Jason Williams
Published:
Reading time: 3 minutes

This article is 8 months old.

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.

We hear it from clients every now and then.  They have taken a car in part exchange, done a HPI check on it and all is clear, no finance. 

Then, sometimes years later, a client receives a letter from a solicitors acting on behalf of a finance company alleging “conversion”.  Conversion is where a person treats and disposes of goods as if they owned them when they actually did not.  The letter will say the car has outstanding finance of thousands of pounds and, if client doesn’t pay up, they will issue court proceedings for selling a car that belonged to the finance company and not the car dealer.

Your initial response will be that it was HPI clear before it was sold.  Unfortunately, the House of Lords decision in Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings 1977 – yes 1977 but still binding on lower courts – states that because there was no legal obligation for a finance company to use the register, the car dealer was nevertheless liable.  

Of course, HPI in 1977 as opposed to HPI more than 40 years later may mean that if the same case was heard again, the outcome might be different. HOWEVER, it would probably require a court of equal or superior rank to the now obsolete House of Lords – such as the Supreme Court – to change it.  This is because of the deeply entrenched legal concept that a lower court cannot overrule a judgment given in a higher ranking court when the facts are the same.

Some light relief though comes in the form of the 2014 High Court decision in Chatfield’s Martin Walter v Lombard North Central, which came to a different conclusion because the facts were slightly different.  Here, the court found against the finance company who DID note their interest in a vehicle on the HPI register but who subsequently removed their interest in error.   There is, therefore, a difference between a finance company that fails to register their interest with HPI and one which does and then alters the register by removing it.  

It might be said that the High Court was simply doing its best to find a distinguishing factor to remove an age-old legal anomaly. It might have been good law in 1977 when HPI was in its comparative infancy, as opposed to now, where it is the place that everyone goes to and relies upon when checking cars for theft, insurance write offs, and outstanding finance.

Jason Williams

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.