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?
This is a bargain site , everyone is looking at it from the perspective they accidentally bought a stolen car and repaired it. They wouldnt want it taken away hahah
Goodwin's Law strikes early on this one.
*Godwin's
Except a lot of stolen items the Nazis took were never returned to the original owners. The governments seized gold and art and some of that art is still being displayed in art galleries while jewish descendants are still trying to claim it back to this day.
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/13462706/redir
OP is passionate about cars too and that particular car has sentimental value of his youth's ride.
Can't think of other reason for someone driving 1975 car in 2005 , in very good low kms condition back then it was stolen from.
Yeah but investing time and money into a stolen car doesn't suddenly make it legally yours.
But this guy has spend his own time and money and is no doubt passionate about the vehicle.
Not passionate to check whether the car he somehow procured was legit…
Indeed procured from a guy he didn't get the name of, no doubt! Fully legit
100% - they aren't even questioning how he came about a stolen car!
"Yeah, found it on the side of a road" …. totally innocent
Because the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Assuming the guy didn't steal it which is extremely unlikely given he went to register it, his simple mistake of not doing a VIN check and throwing very possibly 10s of thousands of dollars into a vehicle to have it taken away is a very brutal and unjustified lesson or the poor guy.
I would say though I'd be checking for market rate of the car in the condition it was when it was stolen and come to some kind of agreement. Also assuming OP didn't get some kind of insurance payout from it back when it was stolen.
The issue is you're being advantageous to a guy who's an innocent victim here and undermining all the work and time he's put into something when it now doesn't impact you, it's pure vengeance directed at someone whose had a slight oversight with paperwork. It's pretty disappointing you feel so entitled to absolutely (profanity) this random person over for misplaced retribution.
"The issue is you're being advantageous to a guy who's an innocent victim here"
That's quite an assumption you have there, friend.
Judging by my down votes, apparently so!
I find it really hard to believe that in this day and age, even if bought privately, that people don't check if the car is stolen, written off, money owing etc.
Keen to hear how this plays out.
FYI, if it helps some members here, buying a car from a dealer has its benefits - if under 10 years old, usually comes with 3 month statutory warranty and if the car has finance owing, its the dealer's problem, not yours.
Car was in really good condition with low kms when stolen, would like it back and I am will to pay guy for restoration
let us know how this plays out? interested to hear how much of a fight the current "owner" will put up on this.
then maybe you can work something out with the guy privately
OP can have the car Fridays to Mondays and other guy can have the car from Tuesdays to Thursdays.
If your willing to pay the guy for restoration that seems very reasonable.
Definitely worth a chat with the guy to hear the story, you will likely find some common ground and be able to come to an agreement.
and I am will to pay guy for restoration
how would you even put a price on something like that? It's not like he would've did it over a single weekend or something. It's usually a hobby thing, so he could've spent all his free time on the weekends over a few years to rebuild it it all.
And even then, does that come with warranty for the work if he's just an unlicensed guy doing it in his backyard for himself? Seems like a huge liability for everyone involved
Yes, I've seen dodgy stuff done in repairs by professional panel beaters, the quality of this restoration could be excellent or terrible or anywhere in between.
you and I usually bump heads but I agree with you. Just something that is hard to quantify.
you and I usually bump heads
Do we? Each different thread is like a "reset" for me and I try not to carry my previous thoughts over… haha
edit: I was curious and had a look, but I can't seem to find where we've ever bumped heads!
Kinda reminds me of the merchant of Venice..i guess in this case Portia would postulate that the person may remove his paint job, but take not a drop of the original primer… Or something
That's a really good approach to a terrible situation
Personally I wouldn't even contact them. If HE is the one who stole it, and spent $ only putting it back to roadworthy condition where it was when he stole it, he'll now have your name/address. You cannot track the parts of cars that age. So with your address he could steal it again, firebomb your house, etc and sell it off in parts from some friend's garage, because scumbags who steal generally only get worse with time, not better.
He should have ran the VIN. Stuff him!
Maybe they did run the VIN and got an anaemic result.
Gov systems often fail or fail to identify records or flag responses correctly.
Maybe it went interstate, and he checked the wrong system. Because Australia has so many govs, each with individual systems duplicating the same kinds of information, very little historical motor vehicle info is effectively linked.
After all, it is not unlikely that this was some kind of barn find, flogged on the web, and then shipped interstate prior to much resto work.
Just keeping a car that was worth a pittance in 2005 and a lot now, mainly because of the storage, handling and resto costs, might be legal, but it is an Ass of an Act (pun intended)! A lot of love would have gone into the project, all of which burned in moments thanks to some administrative hoo-hah.
Besides, for whoever wants to keep a car, the provenance is likely far more important (and valuable), than the cost of the resto. I'd connect with the restorer and connect the dots. The cops won't, after all. That's the way to find the thief. The cops have more important things to do, and some.
The only cars I've seen returned are the ones I or my friends went looking for and found ourselves.
And there are lots of cars stolen in Oz, each year. The bikies used to have warehouses dedicated to the job and even began 'cleaning' their titles through the salvage auctions after they removed a few vital parts, so they could buy it back, re-fit and flip.
Maybe they did run the VIN and got an anaemic result.
The fact that it was flagged when he tried to register it means either he didn't check, or he's had the car for a very long time, back to before REVS check systems went fully online, which would suggest he's the thief who stole it in the first place.
@umexcuseme: You are just assuming the data updated successfully from the relevant state system in the first instance. There are many, and they are all very poorly managed. The data management itself is worse. You don't know when REVS updated, it could have been the result of an old record being input a long time after the report was recorded, or stalled due to failed synchronisation within the relevant police systems, let alone getting from there to the state register, let alone REVS, the week or a month before the guy went to register it. Multiple failures are not uncommon, either.
If the (alleged) registrant is the thief, the police have had more than an opportunity to verify. Certainly they will have been asking questions. But no matter what they do or do not manage to find out, they have to contact the owner and return the vehicle in whatever state it is found.
EDIT: As it turns out later in the thread, the car was not changed much but likely stored interstate for sometime, and sold to the restorer. If the police wish to find the thief, they can follow the breadcrumbs back from where it was stored. I'd leave a message with the police so they know I'd be interested to assist with their investigation, if they ever get to do one.
Just keeping a car that was worth a pittance in 2005 and a lot now, mainly because of the storage, handling and resto costs, might be legal, but it is an Ass of an Act (pun intended)! A lot of love would have gone into the project, all of which burned in moments thanks to some administrative hoo-hah.
This thinking is from the belief Restorer Guy is owed something from another victim (plus ignores the possibility RG could be the thief). What it was worth yesterday, the gain in value of that model since stolen, which parts were replaced, any improvements way above original value, etc is all irrelevant. The only relevant fact is it was always the OP's car. Not the thief's car to take, keep, or sell. Not someone who bought it later or inherited when their thieving relative died. It was never acquired legally by anyone in the chain at any time. So NONE OF THEM had the right to store, buy, move, call theirs, leave to deteriorate, remove parts to sell, and not even to repair or restore. Everyone person who has had the car did this without the real owner's permission.
It's like you going on holiday, squatters move into your home, order renovations, a contractor takes a deposit and refits the property tossing the original fittings. A month later you arrive home, get them evicted, find a bunch of things have changed… new light and tap fittings, ducted aircon etc been fitted. A week later the contractor starts hassling YOU for the balance. "It's YOUR house, I increased it's value at my expense, I'm going to lose $$$ now police have gotten your home back for you." "But the contractor has no legal recourse because I didn't order the improvements!" Yeah, exactly. You could grant the contractor access to swap the solid gold taps for basic stainless again, or rip out the ducted aircon. But what if they turn up with a bad attitude because you won't pay 75% of the cost so they can continue their other work… so they walk on your carpet with muddy boots, act belligerent until they carelessly slip and put their foot through your ceiling. How will you get them to pay when the repairs work out the same cost as the stuff they're removing?
I know what I'd do (unless it was something like an external water tank or gazebo, or something inside I would have chosen myself anyway)… I'd tell them they chose to do all this work for Mr & Mrs Squatter, not me, so go get your money from them.
Let's say the OP gets his car back after 18 years with differential missing, seats and paint job ruined, top half of engine + pricey twin carbies and headers all sold off 15 years ago, bore and sump full of rain water… who would reimburse HIM?
"But poor restorer guy… he didn't know… he's spent all that money and is a victim too." Yes, exactly. He is a victim TOO. TWO victims of ONE thief. (Some are saying OP is scum.) Both are victims of the same thief (even if restorer guy is the 18th "owner" in 18 years). The responsibility didn't switch as each new owner got their wallet out. All that changed was the length of the thief's victim list.
Also the thief wouldn't have stole it to detail and enter it in car shows. It needed restoring because obviously it would have deteriorated over 18 years which just as obviously wouldn't have happened in OP's possession. The OP would have driven it, done oil changes, rego checks, replaced leaking oil seals and siezed brake calipers, washed, polished and vacuumed, applied protective products, probably moved it into a garage as its value rose… But with the thief it would have have sat unused in a garage, barn, or a backyard, duco ruined from years of unwashed dirt or wind rubbing a dirty tarp against it, or just left in direct sunlight. It would have slowly fallen apart, rusted, spiders and cockroaches and mice moved in, would have stunk of that "old car" smell, supple seat foam turned to powder, engine cylinder bores and sump become glazed and gunked up (or completely sold off as parts).
The car left OP's place with a battery, radiator, working brakes, tyres, cylinders firing, etc. He shouldn't have to pay for them twice. He only received the car back in a condition comparable to the day it was stolen. OP doesn't owe anyone for repairs or replacing seized brake cylinders and cracked tyres so it could drive on a road instead of dragging up onto a car trailer. The thief does.
If the thief hadn't stole the OP's car he wouldn't have needed to buy another car, and Restorer Guy wouldn't have spent money restoring it. "But restorer guy made an honest mistake." Yeah maybe. But OP never deceived him into it but did lose out by having to buy another car, and only received back a car close to the same operating condition as the day it left. He is not responsible or liable (legally OR morally) for what happened between day A and Z.
i.e. They are BOTH victims of the SAME thief. Not a victim of the other.
However as I said before, the OP could say to himself, "It had el-cheapo tyres, restore guy fitted new tyres worth 4x more than el-cheapos, AND they are the very same ones I would have bought myself - I'll give him the difference", and so-on, spending days/weeks on a spreadsheet comparing prices, discussion and arguments back and forth, settling on a percentage of each item, etc to give something to RG. It would certainly be nice but he still wasn't the one who stole from restorer guy. So OP certainly isn't scum when the car left and returned with an engine, seats, tyres, etc and he had no input what changed on the car. e.g. Is the OP scum because he tells RG his $2500 leather pink and orange polka dot upholstery is actually worth $0 to him because it makes the OP want to vomit, and no, you're not just coming by one day to put some ratty seats from a wreckers in instead? And should restorer guy get $10,000 because he spent $10,000? Then what if restorer guy doesn't have receipts, uses full retail prices from the Repco site when the same thing cost him 40% less from the bargain bin at SCA. Or gets offended and abusive and demands to be paid for an estimated XX months of labour at $xx per hour (which is again worth $0 to the OP because he would have spent that time without charging himself TOO).
What a minefield.
While it would be difficult for the OP to work out some figure to give restore guy, sure it would be generous. But restore guy will likely never be content regardless of what he gets because he's still thinking what it would have been worth upon completion. So where does the OP's financial responsibility end considering he's been in the dark, not responsible for a single decision made about the car or its restoration since it was stolen. i.e. The likelihood he loves every "improvement" (replacing something that already existed) is small.
Example: I owned a large, loud, pricey, acoustic guitar that was stolen. It's like saying because it changed hands a few times, was left on a verandah in the weather, slammed into hundreds of times by toddlers on plastic tricycles, that the last "owner" the cops found with it who sanded it down, fitted new strings, got a new hard case when the first one fell apart from the rain, a new digital tuner as the original was sold by the first thief, etc… that I should pay the seventh "owner" for MY guitar being returned in comparable to original condition!?
It's not my fault my guitar was stolen, tuner gone, strings snapped, case left in the weather to deteriorate, knocked over repeatedly by Dwarf Godzilla in nappies. Nor is it my fault the last guy bought it from a seedy scumbag and required restoration. None of this was my fault. The guy who restored it returned it to a similar usable condition as when it was stolen, which would have been unnecessary had Mr A Scumbag not… stolen it. I would have kept it in that same condition all those years so why should I pay for the same thing, in the same condition, as it was taken for me? Because it cost someone else something? I don't owe anyone anything to receive back what's mine, even if the last guy inset sapphires into a fresh African blackwood fretboard. To remove them to give them back to him would make the guitar insufferable to use due to the chisel work thus requiring even more repairs at my expense, and that after individualized "improvements" of his that I never would have done myself anyway.
The (real) owners are not responsible for what happens to THEIR possessions after being stolen. Just like we wouldn't pay for a thief's speeding tickets on his way to the barn. So we're also not responsible for paying for 'blah blah' done by other people while it was gone. The thieves are.
Generosity should be appreciated if offered, but is not required, and certainly not scummy/greedy etc for reasons I've outlined above.
Blame and punish thieves - where the real blame, and legal and moral obligation lies with.
You don't have to pay him - unless you are really convinced he is totally innocent and did some basic homework… has there been an explanation of how he got it, why he didn't check title/REVs etc?
Dont pay for resto.
A simple check that would have cost him a couple $ to find if the car had a clean history or not.
Its on him not you.
take into consideration this, in 2005 a 1975 LH Torana was around 7-10k skip forward 2023 they are selling for 40k upwards depending on model.
if my uninsured car was stolen and found i would want it back
Spot on!
i feel sorry for the guy that spent money on it but when i bought my unlicensed car back in 2007 i was still able to run checks through the chassis number and compliance plates with Vic roads even though the car was purchased in WA
there is no excuse really for not doing proper checks
Here's a true story happened to me some years back
Bought privately a vn wagon needed a bit of work etc unreg but vin etc, and PP whatever said NOT STOLEN and no lien on it.
That convinced me to buy, spent money fixing the dud speedo gears and injectors to ensure it ran well and passed roadworthy.
About 3 weeks after I bought it put 12 months rego on it drove for a week or two then copper came knocked at door Car is STOLEN… WTF.
long story short car was given to friend who managed a tyre place to put mags and tyres on it and spray it a decent colour for an agreed price This the tyre guy did the work
Kid who owned it either refused to pay the total price for itas it was over the agreed price. Some arguing over possession etc ensued tyre guy sold car to recover costs claiming the business was owed money etc.
Car wasn't reported stolen till way after sale as tyre guy kept stalling kid over price and saying I'll let you pay if off yadda yadda..
I claimed the cost of repairing the kids car, etc 1000 all up cops and lawyers said no way give the car back or we gaol you for receiving.
so don't think the original owner will be forced to reimburse the guy that's restored the car. sux big time
but hey I did all the checks I possibly could bad part was transport dept gave me back rego component but zero back on the 3rd party insurance component suncorp said up yours nothing I could do
@ShannonN: Fairly rare scenario and very different from OPs.
The Tyre Place is entitled to hold it as a "mechanic's lien" until paid. Hold it, not sell it.
They'd need either some great T&Cs the kid expressly agreed to (which chances are an average tyre shop wouldn't), or a court order before they can sell it.
@ShannonN: How did you do all checks? The guy you bought from didn't have title over the vehicle? Even if it was unregistered, you can easily ask for proof of registration prior.
If someone tried to sell me a car and couldn't prove he was the last registered owner I would laugh and WALK!
@neosin: did a ppsr? check to see if vin etc matched previous rego label (still had those in 99) got motor registry to check if car was stolen etc
Did what was available at the time.
@ShannonN: If my mate went os for a few months and I tried to see you his car without his consent, those checks would be useless!
clear title should be at the top of the checklist
@ShannonN: we all make weird choices when we are more or less young, some girls probably say that about me
Just curious did you make an insurance claim on the car back on 2005?
If there was a claim made the insurance company would actually own the car now.
OP said it wasn't insured (apart from 3rd party) so sounds like no
i drove my 73 LH to the wrecker in 95 and tossed the guy the keys.
Was it stolen?
And thanks to people like you, the remaining cars are worth more.
I wish my stolen (early 2000’s) uninsured 1971 car was found. $50k in the bank today.
What make, model of car was it?
OP says below in a reply that it's a 260z. If I'm OP, I'm definitely collecting that car and keeping it.
100% this changes everything.
If it was a crappy Holden Gemini, meh, whatever. But a 260Z… no way I would be saying “yeah, they can have it…” that car would 100% be coming home with me, restored or not.
Interesting, what did the police say about who stole it?
Certainly talk to a lawyer, certainly you have the claim. Doesn't matter if the car was gold plated, its your property, it was stolen and you did not consent to restoration.
So this guy sat on it for long enough to restore it without attempting to change ownership? Isn't that in itself illegal?
Plenty of fixup cars in garages that sit for 20+ years without being on the road. No reason to think the ownership wasn't changed if they got a receipt from the original thief and never verified ownership.
When a car changes ownership you are meant to complete the sold/disposed of forms. Maybe if the new 'owner' did that he would've been notified the vehicle was stolen and not mutilated and modified someone elses vehicle (at great expense)?
When a car changes ownership you are meant to complete the sold/disposed of forms
what state ? which forms ? for unregistered car without rego number ?
Introduction
When a NSW-registered vehicle changes ownership:
the buyer has to transfer the registration from the previous owner/seller to themselves, and
the previous owner/seller has to submit a notice of disposal (NOD) to confirm that they are no longer the registered owner of the vehicle.
It seems other states use other terms like Registered Operator (VIC) or Registered User (QLD) but all require that the new owner complete a transfer of ownership within 14 days otherwise fines may apply.
@Brian McGee: If there was no rego originally when stolen - e.g. lapsed, or has no plates - then there is no real reason to notify the assorted traffic departments. It's just like any other chattel asset that you could buy on Facebook Marketplace.
In most states, Registration is not a title registration, it is just a road user registration. It does not prove title or register title (unlike property/land which is a system of title of registration called Torrens)
Sell it for RRP.
The Police have said its your property and to come and pick it up . Don't worry about the other guy as its a high % chance however he got the car somehow related to the initial crime . There no way the other guy going to get a legal team . Why wouldn't the other guy during purchasing do the necessary checks is the big red flag ?
Why wouldn't the other guy during purchasing do the necessary checks is the big red flag ?
This is the correct question
An even easier question is why wouldn't they just get the car roadworthy and registered BEFORE spending a pile of cash to restore the car.
None of this makes sense, I'm sure the restorer has some connection with the thief and hoping to get away with it.
The simple fact is it was your property that was stolen. Someone acquired the car with the intention of restoring it without performing due diligence (many places to check the VIN/engine number - governmental, internet communities). Whether they purchased the car from the thief, inherited it, purchased an abandoned storage locker - they shouldn't have spent a dollar on the car before making sure everything was legit.
Some would say let the other party have it, you don't know their sob story etc. but I disagree, the car is yours. To answer your question though, I don't know about lawyering up.
what car?
1975 honda civic? = who cares, let him keep it since he has put in the tool time
1975 lambo countach lp400? = might want to try and work out a deal
260z
Wooooah. Then I retract my earlier statement. Keep it and drive it like it was stolen.
a true legend of a car and clearly a good reason to have driven a 30 year old car that long ago.
As a likely young man (I'm guessing please correct) at the time it was stolen, and clearly into their JDM classics, a loss like that would hurt deeply.
I think you have all the rights to the car and clearly its on the 'owner' for not checking this whole time.
I would offer fair compensation (given its restored) of the car's value in 2005 indexed today. If that's like 12k (just throwing a number), so be it. You lost 18 years of life with that car (and I'm taking the view that it should be treated financially as if you had sold it 18 years ago and put it in a bank deposit)
If he/she wants more, tough luck (they should try and claim from the person they bought from - not that you really can, unless a dealer) or see if perhaps any insurance would cover (I'm hoping they would have some restoration car cover, like if your shed burnt down. Don't know how it could possibly cover stolen cars though).
If the owners spent a truly great amount of money (incl. personal time on the car) perhaps bump the payment a bit out of humanity, but at the end of the day if you reported it (clearly you did) and intended to keep and it wasn't discovered till today then you've done nothing wrong.
Also they seem to be worth about 70k, not the 40k suggested elsewhere.
Keep it and drive it like it was stolen.
One of the few times this phrase is meant literally.
Nice…
I would come up with a fair and reasonable number and offer to sell the vehicle to them.
At minimum, I would be looking for its value at the time it was stolen + inflation.
You really should have led with this comment…. its not a car to just "don't worry about it"
Give it to me and rid yourself of the ethical dilemma
Nice.
Dude down the street from my place has an orange one.
Had!
Perhaps get it valued with and without restoration and negotiate a fair price fir the restoration labor? If he didn't nick it and put a load in to restoring it, it seems fair he gets something for his troubles if its not the car (and you'd have had to get it done anyway considering the age). If he did nick it, well, enjoy your newly restored old car
shocked this wasnt the first question… or wasnt in the original post…
Maybe a 6 pack of your favourite beer?
Call it quits.
I dunno prices have gone up in recent……
Didn't the same thing happen to Quentin Tarantino? Although in his case, he was paid out insurance when it was stolen and didn't give the guy who restored the car anything.
Feels like it could get messy on the parts but, like everyone else here, I have neither the details nor the legal expertise to chime in. Feels like coming to an agreement and moving on is the right/sensible way to deal with it.
If the insurance company paid him out, then the car would belong to the insurance company, and it would not be returned to the original owner by the police when recovered, it would go to the insurance company to sell off.
In this case the OP wasn't insured. So he has remained the legal owner for the last 18 years, and it comes back to him. In whatever condition its in. And if he decides to be generous to the restorer for restoring it, that's up to him. There is no legal obligation to do so.
Even knowing that it is an 260z, if I were in your shoes, sure I'd be ecstatic that it was recovered,
knowing that someone was restoring it, unbeknown to them that it was stolen… I'd feel like I was repeating history and they were me 18yrs ago.
That person probably initially stole your car, there is no way it just sits unused for close to 2 decades then ends in this guys hands somehow without them doing their due diligence, you do not want them to financially gain from this situation.
Picking car up tomorrow, my reasons are he could of done a $3 revs check with just the vin, car was in really good condition when it went missing and at the time I spent about half a year’s salary to buy it (bought in 1999)
Also I bloody loved that car and honestly would probably still own it to this day if it wasn’t stolen.
I’ll add that I have spoken to a lawyer, they basically said to get it asap and don’t contact the current ‘owner’ as once back in my possession it’s going to be impossible for the guy to claim anything.
Make sure you get it insured (including the added value of repairs)!
If they want the parts, let them make a claim. Why create more hassle for yourself? Also costs money and could backfire.
Sounds like the lawyers are telling OP to not respond to any claims.
@cheng2008: The lawyer sounds like they're preparing for a legal fight (and the billing that ensues)
What deal, the guy restored a car without checking who it actually belonged to.
I agree, stuff the morons. The car ain't his, he could have coated the mofo in gold and it still ain't his.
It's stolen.