Got a call about a car that was stolen from me years ago. 1975 model. Wasn’t insured apart from 3rd party. Police have informed me it was picked up in system when the current owner went to try and register it.
Unfortunately for him he has spent $$$$ on restoring it. Car is being held in by police until I pick it up. Need to know if the guy that did it up can lawyer up to try and get money or car/parts back from me?
OP doesn't own the other party anything, as buying,/receiving stolen goods isn't Op's problem.
What the lawyer said is perfectly fine, pickup car and move on. Don't make any contact whatsoever with the other party or anyone else making any future representations on their behalf.
Pics once collected please and thank you!
I second this motion
I spent about half a year’s salary to buy it (bought in 1999)
And you didn't even insure it TPFT?
Wow this might be the one case where it was better for OP to not have insurance lol (if it is indeed properly restored).
Agreed, if the insurance company paid him out, technically the insurance company would own the old car and he would not be getting it back.
Who would of expected a call 18 years after.
Maybe has a RB26 engine in it now with turbos, who knows what sort of restoration was done.
Follow the lawyer's advice.
Congrats on getting your car back - so many never come home or if they do they're as good as dead. Enjoy!
"would probably still own it to this day if it wasn’t stolen."
you do.
I'd also change my tune for $40k, if you're feeling guilty then give $10k to an animal shelter or something
What earlier comments, you means the ones from random people saying "oh let him keep the car".
@Lichen6420: Nonsense. Giving the previous "owner" some money for PARTS/PAINT isn't the same as SHARING THE NEW VALUE after 18 years. He did say he was willing to pay for such things, but never mentioned SHARING THE INCREASED VALUE which is what you imply. Because then he'd be getting stolen from TWICE! Once when it was taken and he had to buy another car while this one was sat deteriorating at someone else's place, and again to put it back to a reasonable standard. Forget it!
But since then he's been advised "no contact" by a lawyer.
And why would the lawyer say this? Because there's no way of knowing who the other guy is or how he might react. He could be the original thief and if so probably knows a bunch of other similar scumbags. Once he has the OPs details could steal it again, demand certain parts back that were there when it was stolen or needed for the thing to still run, get argumentative thinking he isn't being offered "enough" which then leads to threats, violence, setting OP's house on fire at 2am, etc.
OP is the real victim here and IF the other guy is a "victim" to someone else, all it would have taken to protect himself was a phone call to check the VIN. That's why the service exists so why didn't he? Because he's either a Darwin Award contestant, the original thief, or related to them and "inherited" it when the thief died.
Since it wasn't cut up and disposed of years ago, and their value increasing over that time, it's likely the thief kept it waiting for years to buy a cheap rusted out wreck so he could swap it's VIN plate over. But when even rusted out shells were too expensive for him it just sat there deteriorating.
It's not the OP's problem OR obligation to share the increase in value that would have been 100% his had it been in his possession all these years AND which probably REQUIRED restoration to get to that same level again.
@[Deactivated]: "Not knowing how the other guy might react"
If you're keeping the car and not contacting the guy, better keep it off the forums and away from the car clubs too. Can't imagine what will happen if he comes across it.
edit: Better get a car alarm and the keys re-cut as well..
@darkly: That's a good point, other guy knows the VIN, he knows what the car looks like, and it's not exactly a car that blends in on the road. He may decide to get even and steal all his parts back or do even worse. Surely it wouldn't be smart to ignore him if he was a scumbag.
@[Deactivated]: "waiting for years to buy a cheap rusted out wreck so he could swap it's VIN plate over."
plot twist the guy did this, but the rusted out wreck he bought was the OPs.
@Lichen6420: Horse sh!t - for all you know the guy 'restoring it' stole it, knew the guy who stole it, or otherwise "acquired" it without doing any homework.
We had outdoor furniture stolen from on the verandah of a house on a busy street - it was recovered and the guy had sanded back a bench seat and re-lacquered it. However it was in fact the guy who stole it, that's how the cops found it, by finding him!
Additionally, the restoration could be bad job with old wrecker parts or cheap aftermarket, OP may be annoyed that his car has been adulterated and no longer in original condition, or there may have been stuff all done other than a polish and a service…. It's OP's car and he's not running a charity - he's not a shitty human at all.
@MrFrugalSpend: I'd also note that clearly the car wasn't maintained if it sat unregistered for 18 years (or perhaps they knew it was stolen and thought time heals all). It was reasonable to expect the car in the same maintained condition as to when it was stolen. The person restoring this car is either a thief or has learned a valuable lesson that you usually don't get something for nothing. Either way, the restorer got the joy of restoring a now classic car, and I am sure the owner is thankful for having it back in reasonable condition. I dgaf if they gold lined it, it's not their property.
If you factor in the cost of buying/renting/leasing another vehicle for all these years, the restorer should be thankful they don't have to compensate the owner, not the other way around.
People make mistakes, but not doing a REVS/VIN check is very dodgy. Enjoy your car OP, I would have zero guilt.
This is 1000% the correct decision and anyone suggesting that you should just let old mate keep it is both delusional and a hypocrite. Who tf would just let that slide when even a modicum of logic suggests old mate could have very well been related to the theft. Good on ya
Imagine if OP took the majority advice from Ozb and just gave the car to the person who restored it.
Congrats OP and all the best!
I don't think the guy who fixed it up could do anything about it - would he even know who you are? As he attempted to register it though he obviously didn't know it was stolen. So If it was me I would sell the car and give him some of the money (anonymously) proportionate to the value of the improvements.
On the other hand if I wanted to keep driving the car I would not bother to compensate him.
Just because he attempted to register it doesn’t mean they didn’t know it was stolen. Could have mistakenly thought or (been told) that it drops off the system after 10/15 years and can be registered.
Criminals rarely admit to anything and just claim ignorance.
I find it doubtful. If he was thinking that way he would have tried to register it BEFORE fixing it up and not the vice versa. Fixing it up is a significant investment.
Your car. Maybe they can try get the car parts back or fair value of the parts (that they purchased, with proof)? I'd take it back and wait to see whether they would even try to claim.
Summary here: https://slflawyers.com.au/news/i-unwittingly-bought-a-stolen…
…The nemo dat principle provides that no person can give what he or she does not possess and own.
…In short, the position of the Courts in determining proper ownership of a rebirthed vehicle that has been unwittingly purchased is that the thief of the vehicle did not acquire good title to it, and any person who possessed it thereafter cannot maintain ownership of it.
…Accordingly, ownership of the stolen and recovered vehicle will ultimately vest in the original owner (or their insurer), notwithstanding that the innocent purchaser carried out reasonable due diligence and provided valuable consideration at the time of the transaction.
notwithstanding that the innocent purchaser carried out reasonable due diligence and provided valuable consideration at the time of the transaction.
Considering OP had obviously reported it stolen and a cheap PPSR/REVS check would have informed the buyer as such then how can they argue they had performed "due diligence"?
No chance the buyer made an honest attempt to find out, they either didn't think to, or deliberately chose not to both of which exclude them from the "due diligence" clause
Yep, just quoting the key bits of info
The people suggesting the OP should give the car the restorer or sell at nominal cost have lost their marbles.
Ikr. People sadly not living up to the “f you got mine” mantra….
not so sure it is "f you got mine", it is more why the F would you reward someone that did the wrong thing in the first place, all that cost could have been avoided by a cheap simple check and the real owner could have had their car back years? ago.
So true!
Who tf buys a classic car and doesnt do a check on it. This isn't "f you got mine" it's "f you this one IS mine"
Agree 100%.
Yes, but we don't mind if you keep our marbles :P.
I'd wanna know the story from the other bloke…
where he got it
how long he had it
list of whats been done
yea all awesome to have it back, but look to be in his shoes… he might be a young bloke put everything into it… if hes spent 20-30k doing it up….. same as you felt when you had it stolen.
YMMV
PS. he'd have a spare key too…
Exactly, it's not very wise of him (the guy who fixed it up) to have not looked up the history, but when I was young I did lots of dumb things through lack of wisdom/experience (e.g used mobile internet overseas). At the end of the day it is upto OP, the guy who fixed the car can't expect anything.
used mobile internet overseas
Legend has it that you're still paying off this debt to this day.
man that brings back bad memories. I used hotel phone in the ritz carlton london for LOCAL dialup internet access. Imagine my shock at checkout after 4 days to find they slugged me with 1900 pound phone bill. Took a lot of arguing with them to eventually get that cut back to 200 pounds which was still a rip off for a few hours a day of local internet (and no there was nothing in the room to say the price of phone calls, didn't even think about it), this would have been back in 1998.
PS. he'd have a spare key too…
Good tip. 1st thing for OP is to change the ignition switch / key, install alarm with immobilizer and gps.
And hide an Apple tag in the seats.
I wonder what key he has, unless OP's key was taken at the time.
Sounds like a HIM issue not a OP issue
Keep it, you dont owe anyone anything.
The person who restored it may be able to recover costs from whom they purchased it ? Dunno, but either way that's their problem.
Congrats on getting your car back, Enjoy!
I would want the car back, bloody sucks for the person who restored it. Even more so if he ran all the vins before buying it.
People are crazy that they are expecting you to just say "yeah have it" with a $80k+ car, even +2 are worth big bucks these days.
Glad you got the car back, the poor bloke who restored it can take legal action against the person he purchased it off.
Enjoy the car, I'm jealous
scroll up
260z
:O
It's your car. As horrible as it is for the bloke that put his $$ into it, that is nothing to do with you. He can take that matter up with the authorities, or whoever sold it to him in the first place.
Your car was stolen.
Some numpty bought it.
Same numpty didn't bother doing even a basic ownership check.
Your car was found and is legally yours.
Go git your sweet ride now. Deal with anything else after your property is safely in your possession. My guess is they new it was dodgy, but thought after a decade or so no one would notice. People are idiots.
Do post pic of what it looks like now. I've been helping a mate work on a car for three years now and it would be nice to see a project car actually running :)
The best and fairest outcome for both parties is this;
Car is sold and money is divided equally between both owners.
There's only 1 owner.
It's also a very simplistic and flawed solution. What was the value of the car pre restoration and how much was spent on restoration? Without knowing that and the current value how can you possibly suggest a 50/50 split is fair?
The sentimental value to original owner you and myself cannot measure. Likewise the sentimental value to new owner you and myself cannot measure.
Any money spent by either of the two owners upon purchase or during ownership must be written off because in the present day neither of the two parties are the sole owner.
Therefore the most fair thing is to sell and divide equally.
There is no original owner, or new owner. Just the owner. Car was stolen, title has been held by the owner (OP) the entire time.
Law asside possession is 9/10 of it
that idiom has not been true since the 1700's and regardless possession is now in the hands of the owner rather than caretaker of the stolen goods.
@gromit: In the land of what if; your family home was found to be stolen 50 years ago. According to unfairness you are now homeless.
@figarow: yes that would be fair if I didn't do my checks and ensure I had proper title. Of course anyone would be a moron that didn't do title checks on a property purchase, similarly only an idiot doesn't do a title check on a car. Cheap systems have been in place for decades to avoid this very scenario and if you don't do them you have no one to blame but yourself.
Hmm, how about cutting the car in half?
Or rather used every other week.
True. Upon looking at the car it’s not bad looking. Probably best not to chop it in half.
yeh i was gonna suggest that as the test.. whoever truly loves the car, and can't see it cut, deserves it most
(j/k but yeah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon / brecht)
Forcing OP's car sale, which he said he would have kept and still have today is not fair, splitting even also not fair - the dude may have stolen it and done a crap job of restoration that added little value versus how OP may have been able to keep it in original condition (He's not going to admit he stole it when flagged when trying to register it). There's only one owner, the one that legally bought it - OP. If OP was 100% convinced the guy is innocent, and he sees value add, he could choose to give a bit of money to the added value he perceived at his discretion to be fair and/or reimburse third party expenses (such as parts) and should feel happy he did.
Personally I would get the car back first. Contact the other guy and ask him to produce receipt on how much he has spent on restoring the car and pay him that amount. I’m sure he has done a good job restoring the car and you would probably spend similar amount to maintain it had you kept it for 18 years.
Congratulations on winning the car lottery dude. I feel for the restorer. But come on. Being in the industry the restorer should know the basics.
I would also love to see a photo. Cars are my pride and joy. I would be devastated to have someone steal one. But I would be wrapped to eventually get it back in a improved state!
Best story I have read on here for a long time!
Lot of misconception here
1) Theres no titles to cars in Australia (like in USA or with real estate property etc). Rego papers are not a proof of ownership (its proof of who is responsible of the numberplate). So if a car was purchased and restored of x amount a time no state license department would know who owned it except the last registered owner. Receipt of sale would be the only proof of ownership which if the person purchased of the thief would have been have been issued via fraud (they didn't own the vehicle).
2) Its 2005 not 2023 so PPSR checks were not the same level as they are today (which even today are not 100% accurate and stated in the searches further checks may be required). I would say there would be some possibility that a check may have been done at purchase and it was not showing as stolen at the time.
Either way sounds like a loss for OP (had his car stolen for 18 yrs) and whoever restored the vehicle (even if they knew the car was dodgy - which I doubt as theyd usually swap the tags etc)
Either way sounds like a loss for OP (had his car stolen for 18 yrs) Maybe when young but OP being offered the car now . Hence Winner , Winner , Winner , Chicken Dinner .
Yeah maybe we can feel a little sorry for the buyer since he MIGHT have tried to do the purchase by-the-book, but you're still assuming that he made an attempted to do a VIN check.
Whatever the cops did to flag it as stolen 18 years ago automatically showed up in the check now so not like it was lost in some back room and never put into the database. To me that adds credence to the fact that this could have been avoided with a VIN check.
Everyone's saying let the guy keep the car like it's a Datsun 200B.
Enjoy having your car back, mate; all else, not your problem.
A similar thing happened to me. I got screwed.
The car is legally yours, the guy who sold it wasn't legally allowed to sell it. The purchaser needs to recover costs from the dodgy seller.
Spoiler, I never was able to recover costs.
:D
at least you don't have 18 years worth of parking tickets or fines. Congrats an your newly restored car.
the person who restored it,could be up for car thief if they can't prove where they got it from.
The only person that owes this person anything is arguably the person that sold them the car. He failed to do basic checks (probably cause he bought it super cheap), any loses he can go chase the person that sold it to him. Take the car back, if you feel too guilty about it perhaps you could offer them some money for the upgrades or offer to sell it back to him for the value of the vehicle today without the upgrades.
The guy that stole from him is the one that sold him the stolen car. Any responsibility for theft lies with them and for the additional loss lies with the buyer for not checking he had legal title.
nobody knows the person (male or female, you assume its a guy) who initially stole it or whether the guy who made the modifications is in any connection to the thief.
i know OP doesn't own the modifications.
facts only.
The OP owns the car regardless of the condition, whether it has been left to rust or has had $100k spent on it. No one else owns it, if someone upgrades something you own without you asking or giving permission it does not give them some implicit right to it.
when the current owner went to try and register it.
OP disagrees on current owner definition.
is the initial thief he or she?
@SpicyStew: really? who cares, it is irrelevant. So they used incorrect definition, they should have said the person currently in possession of my vehicle.
I'll just steal the paint, tyres, wheels, interior, engine back…
Oh wait…
Tell him that he can sue the guy who sold it to him…
My initial response is that it is still your property. As others have alluded to there is quite a body of law in this respect.
While I certainly can't give you an absolute answer, the legal position will be that you will be deemed to be the owner of the car. Whether or not the punter can establish some financial interest in the car is what will be in dispute. If they can, then you will need to reach an equivalent financial settlement (either party buys the other out/sell at auction and take respective shares).
If we're talking something of real value (and it sounds like we are), I'd be taking legal advice on the matter ASAP.
Thank you ozb for an actual interesting front page post. Please let us know how it plays out OP, really fascinating one.
Congrats on getting your car back!
I'd be getting my car back and that is that . An original car from 1975 is probably worth more than a done up car anyway so it could be that the modifications that were made actually took value off rather than added value (even if they cost him money). I wouldn't entertain a conversation about paying for restoration etc. The person doesn't have your contact details and shouldn't be able to get them anyway. What a windfall make sure you insure it this time.
OP has done nothing wrong, he/she gets the car back in whatever condition it currently is in. The person who bought stolen goods and subsequently restored the car needs to take things up with the person he/she purchased the car from.
Nothing to say the modifications are even done to a good/legal standard for the vehicle to ever become roadworthy again, the OP will be stuck with the vehicle regardless of the condition.
OP should contact the victim and demand receipts and engineering reports
OP is the victim… lol
I was being heavily sarcastic.
Not only are we suggesting that the restorer should do his dough but lets assume they did a bad job too.
@Brick Tamland: That's for him/her to follow up with the person he/she bought the car from to see if they can recover any costs, hasn't got anything to do with the OP, they never asked for their property to be stolen.
they never asked for their property to be stolen.
I must have missed that point
Please keep us updated and post pics!
Not your typical OzBargain 'I only had 3rd party insurance' post..
Everyones assuming it was restored…. it may have been gettin rego for the Shitbox rally… lol
Everyone probably assumes that because the post literally says the person has spent money($$$) restoring it.
On page 1 OP had said he was willing to pay the guy for the restoration, so I assume that OP was willing to work out a deal before he talked to his lawyer.