Bank stole my car?

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Possibly the dumbest bit of advice given so far....

The car hasnt been stolen for starters.

Technically it hasn't but it sort've has been at the same time.
It's the exact same outcome as theft.

The only physical difference between this and theft is he knows who took the car, unlike thieves the bank have no reason to hide anything, they're the bank no one can **** with them.

I wouldn't settle for an apology, I'd be demanding compensation and attacking the bank all you can, trying to charge them would be a good start, probably couldn't charge them with theft but definitely something.

[Crazy Dazz]

Sorry, I didn’t see this thread till just now.
1. For the record, banks ARE bastards and they WILL throw people out on the street. They can and DO get default judgements and Possession Orders, and once they have that they can ask the bailiff to take possession at any time.
2. The banks will NEVER refuse to accept deposits, however they will at a minimum insist on all arrears and costs being paid, and even then may still choose to invoice the possession order.
3. It sounds most likely that your mate was or is an undischarged bankrupt, as that is the most likely cause of the “trustee” arrangement. They would accept his money but are FORBIDDEN by the Privacy act to discuss any details with someone other than the account holder. Even with written permission they are under no obligation to do so.
4. All the legal action would have been handled by the bank’s lawyers. If you thoughts the banks were bad, wait til you meet their lawyers. I think they are DNA screened to weed out anybody with a hint of decency, courtesy, or “common sense.”
5. The actual possession would have been handled by the Bailiff. They will call in the police if needed.
6. The lawyers then generally use a Real Estate Agent to handle the property. They will arrange to have the locks changed and the property secured asap, then get it cleaned, and eventually ready for sale. It is not surprising that they had a security patrol check on the house as people commonly think they can sneak back in.
7. The bank has no RIGHTS to belongings within the house, but that in itself is problematic. As part of the eviction process your mate would have been informed that he had to remove all belongings. Generally, if you ask nicely, they will allow you supervised access to remove them, however legally it is taken to be abandoned.
8. Importantly, they have taken responsibility for the house, they have NO liability for goods “abandoned” within. Theft is not uncommon. Whether items are taken by opportunistic neighbours, ex-spouse, or the Nigerian Real Estate Agent, can never be proven.
9. You do NOT need a lawyer. Unless there is a clear course of action, (ie you KNOW who took the car) they will only waste time and your money.
10. If the agent in possession is denying removing the cars, then you have a basis to report a theft to the Police. However don’t expect them to be much help. They will be reluctant to get involved in the “theft” of belongings from a seized property. Furthermore, if your NEW car was stolen from your drive they would do little more than list it on their database, and advise when the wreck was reported.
11. Assuming the car was actually there at the time of the eviction, then there are three likely possibilities.
a. It was stolen for “scrap” by one of the dodgy towies who go around stealing abandoned cars and selling them to wreckers.
b. It was stolen by someone who knew what it was and seized the opportunity.
c. The Agent told someone to get in and start clearing away the (s)crap.
12. Your best bet is to print up some fliers, offer a reward for information, and start knocking on neighbours’ doors.
13. Don’t bother ASKING Towies, but definitely check out anybody who advertises that they pick up old car bodies.
14. If you know that your car had some particularly saleable unique Landau parts, try asking some of the local wreckers if they have any.
15. This really sucks, you have my utmost sympathy.
16. Unless your car was a rusted hulk, It is unlikely that it would have been immediately crushed. There’s not HUGE value in stealing a car just to crush it, they will usually try to salvage some parts first.
17. Forget about the Banking Ombudsman. You have no direct dealing with the bank, so no standing to make a complaint, they CANNOT investigate any matter that has been before the courts, they will not investigate anything that involves the bank exercising its legal rights under a contract, and even if they could, would, and did, they are as useless as tits on a bull.
18. If you want to “take action” against someone, then your best bet is lean heavily on the real estate agent.

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

Sorry, I didn’t see this thread till just now.
1. For the record, banks ARE bastards and they WILL throw people out on the street. They can and DO get default judgements and Possession Orders, and once they have that they can ask the bailiff to take possession at any time.
2. The banks will NEVER refuse to accept deposits, however they will at a minimum insist on all arrears and costs being paid, and even then may still choose to invoice the possession order.
3. It sounds most likely that your mate was or is an undischarged bankrupt, as that is the most likely cause of the “trustee” arrangement. They would accept his money but are FORBIDDEN by the Privacy act to discuss any details with someone other than the account holder. Even with written permission they are under no obligation to do so.
4. All the legal action would have been handled by the bank’s lawyers. If you thoughts the banks were bad, wait til you meet their lawyers. I think they are DNA screened to weed out anybody with a hint of decency, courtesy, or “common sense.”
5. The actual possession would have been handled by the Bailiff. They will call in the police if needed.
6. The lawyers then generally use a Real Estate Agent to handle the property. They will arrange to have the locks changed and the property secured asap, then get it cleaned, and eventually ready for sale. It is not surprising that they had a security patrol check on the house as people commonly think they can sneak back in.
7. The bank has no RIGHTS to belongings within the house, but that in itself is problematic. As part of the eviction process your mate would have been informed that he had to remove all belongings. Generally, if you ask nicely, they will allow you supervised access to remove them, however legally it is taken to be abandoned.
8. Importantly, they have taken responsibility for the house, they have NO liability for goods “abandoned” within. Theft is not uncommon. Whether items are taken by opportunistic neighbours, ex-spouse, or the Nigerian Real Estate Agent, can never be proven.
9. You do NOT need a lawyer. Unless there is a clear course of action, (ie you KNOW who took the car) they will only waste time and your money.
10. If the agent in possession is denying removing the cars, then you have a basis to report a theft to the Police. However don’t expect them to be much help. They will be reluctant to get involved in the “theft” of belongings from a seized property. Furthermore, if your NEW car was stolen from your drive they would do little more than list it on their database, and advise when the wreck was reported.
11. Assuming the car was actually there at the time of the eviction, then there are three likely possibilities.
a. It was stolen for “scrap” by one of the dodgy towies who go around stealing abandoned cars and selling them to wreckers.
b. It was stolen by someone who knew what it was and seized the opportunity.
c. The Agent told someone to get in and start clearing away the (s)crap.
12. Your best bet is to print up some fliers, offer a reward for information, and start knocking on neighbours’ doors.
13. Don’t bother ASKING Towies, but definitely check out anybody who advertises that they pick up old car bodies.
14. If you know that your car had some particularly saleable unique Landau parts, try asking some of the local wreckers if they have any.
15. This really sucks, you have my utmost sympathy.
16. Unless your car was a rusted hulk, It is unlikely that it would have been immediately crushed. There’s not HUGE value in stealing a car just to crush it, they will usually try to salvage some parts first.
17. Forget about the Banking Ombudsman. You have no direct dealing with the bank, so no standing to make a complaint, they CANNOT investigate any matter that has been before the courts, they will not investigate anything that involves the bank exercising its legal rights under a contract, and even if they could, would, and did, they are as useless as tits on a bull.
18. If you want to “take action” against someone, then your best bet is lean heavily on the real estate agent.

Too many ill informed guesses there for my liking.

When a bank takes posession of a property (forcibly remove an occupant under an order for possession) they have a legal responsibiity for safe keeping of the goods on the property. I see a big problem for you in that, I assume the car was stored on the property in the same manner before and after the possession was taken. You wll have a big problem in proving that what was adequate beforehand was not adequate afterwards.

To get compensation you have to prove negligence. How many hours of legal work at $350+ per can you afford?

I think your car has simply been stolen, I would be having a serious chat with your 'mate' about what has gone down here.

I really hope you get a good outcome from this.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

I wouldn't settle for an apology, I'd be demanding compensation and attacking the bank all you can, trying to charge them would be a good start, probably couldn't charge them with theft but definitely something.

LOL. Nice try, but...

The bank havent actually done anything wrong here. The mate has done what a lot of people in his situation do, hoped it would all just go away. How much notice did he have that the house was to be reposessed? Its not like the bailiff just showed up out of the blue.

Any request for compensation needs to be directed at the mate (or the trustee of the house if they failed to inform the mate of proceedings). Even then, you'd need to demonstrate some sort of loss. At this stage, its just been a hassle.

[xisled]

Originally Posted by Landau Stable

just to add some detail, it goes something like this. i am not familiar with how most of this works, so if someone can explain in detail that would be great.
He said he had the property under the name of a trustee. he always paid the bills and mortgage. Then the trustee tried to sell up the place, so he has legally been fighting to get it back in his name and get full authority again. In the meantime, unbeknown to him, the bank started rejecting his payments. He reckons that the bank simply view him as a tenant there, and that they won't deal with him officially. As such he never recieved a letter informing him to vacate until the sherriff turned up. The sherrif went through everything, and my mate says it's all his stuff. 2 days later, a security guard truns up and says to my mate you can't be here, you are tresspassing. At that point police turn up and forcibly removed him for 2 days. Yesterday was when he returned, though he is informed that he can't legally do so. On his return, he found the vehicles missing. He said he is seeking an injunction. In the meantime, the bank have full control.

Now your mate might be telling the truth about not getting any of the letters, even tho everyone is screaming and yelling how the bank should have given notice and sent him notice and it takes months, but what if the bank has sent all the notices to the trustee and not your mate. So your mate may not have even seen or heard about any letters until they rocked up on his door step. If the trustee postal address is different, then yes your mate would have not seen any of the letters.

when was the last time you actually seen the car at your mates property?
The car may have gone along while before the house was taken.

Or someone has come along and taken the car in the couple nights the bank has had control.

I would be making a polic report, just in case the car turns up. The police can not do anything by way of charging anyone, but it will go down as stolen on the RTA database.

Maybe if you can you should see if you can make a trip at night and see for your self if the car is really gone.

[mik]

the police report and perhaps knocking on some neighborhood doors sounds pretty good, you would think if a heap of cars were being salvaged someone in the hood would have seen something.

[xe351]

any updates mate?

[FordACE]

would love to hear the outcome on this, so i'm subscribing.

hope you get it back.

[sprint347dave]

Which Bank?

[aussiblue]

17. Forget about the Banking Ombudsman

If you check page 2 of this thread he has contacted them and it helped him find out who was handling the property repossession.

9. You do NOT need a lawyer.

Perhaps not but its clear our poster has limited knowedge of the law in this area and he is not clear about the status of his mate if he can get access to a lawyer (especially if it's through his trade union or motoring club at little or no cost) he will have a clearer picture of his position and legal options for trying to recover the car.

[Landau Stable]

I'm getting really fed up with this country and it's system.
went to the police with my receipt as proof of ownership. they tell me it's not enough. they need it put into my name via RTA, or they will not investigate. i go to RTA. They tell me i need more info on my receipt, such as the drivers licence of the seller, and a blue slip. how can i get a blue slip for a car needing resto????? then the big news which drives me wild. they do a check on the VIN numbers. no record of the car existing. anywhere. when buying the car, i double checked the numbers. i know these numbers belong to the car. so now i have contacted 13FORD to get a verification letter. spent the afternoon trying to get that sorted. I get my verification on Monday. so when they prove that the car exists, hopefully RTA will now log it back into their system with me as the owner, and then i might finally be able to get the police to investigate and list it as stolen and put it on the REVS list. What a joke!

[big_landau]

id say the car has only been at the house for a few weeks or something,isnt the law that if a car has been left at a property for more than 6 months the property owner then owns the car?

[Jim Goose]

Buying an unregistered means technically it doesnt exsist in the eyes of the RTA.
The RTA is only interested in registered cars. Its nothing new, thats the way its always been.

When was the last time you actually saw the car at your mates place?
The whole thing with your mate paying for a house under a trustee sounds sus to me.
Is he a declarred bankrupt?
Does he have money problems?
How do you know who took the car?
Until you find evidence that someone else apart from the repo agent (or whoever is acting on their behalf in clearing up the house) then your car isnt stolen, but more then likely at a holding yard.

Instead of running around asking the police for help (which sorry is a waste of time because currently its a CIVIL matter) you need to find out who actually took the car.
An agent acting for the bank....
Your mate who maybe sold it....
or Someone in the know who took the car pretending to be acting on behalf of the bank.....

Have you gotten in contact with the trustee yet?
A lawyer?

[Ibrox90]

Awful lot of "Bush lawyers" on this thread

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by big_landau

id say the car has only been at the house for a few weeks or something,isnt the law that if a car has been left at a property for more than 6 months the property owner then owns the car?

Why don't you google a bit or go to www.austlii.edu.au and do some research before you spout this junk.

[Ben73]

Seams the easiest thing to do wold be bill you 'mate' a few grand and buy another one... less stuffing around.

[randel]

maybe your mate sold it?

[MO]

This whole thing sounds very sus to me.
In post number 34 the trustee is female and your mate is trying to get her taken off and him made trustee. Seems to me your mates girlfriend/wife is going after him in a property settlement. Hope Im wrong but I think your caught up in busted divorce etc. Sure your mate wasn't escorted off the property by the coppers because he has an AVO on him.

Like I said at the start it is very sus,hopefully I've misread but I think your being spun a yarn by your mate.

EDIT. An after thought if a bank is repo'ing a house etc aren't trustees a company like 'Burns Phelp'(sp)

[Pat Riley]

Need to realky know 2 bits of information for this to make sense?

a) What is the relationship between the trustee and your mate? The trustee is just the person who controls a trust, so maybe he is a beneficiary of the trust, but doesn't have control over the trust. "She" could be a sister-in-law?

b) If there is a mortgage to pay, who is the mortage's name in?

My guess is that the trustee of the trust is in financial difficulty and the bank is foreclosing on her. They have identified that the she is a trustee of a trust which owns property and are looking to sell that property to pay-off her debts.

The trust probably has a loan over the property which the trustee could not or did not want to pay, and so a beneficiary of the trust (your mate) said he would live there and pay it on behalf of the trust.

Now your mate is without a home because he doesn't technically own it, even though he is paying the mortgage, and he probably has not received any correspondence that there are people chasing the property because it will all be going to the bank's address.

[WMD351]

I'm another +1 for door knocking the neighbours.
Probably a dead end but someone might have noticed when and how it was taken.
I feel for you mate, really crap way to start Chrissy.

[spooty]

Hope you get her back and soon!
Do you have photos or anything else to support your ownership of the vehicle?
Might be an idea to put a pic up incase someone spots it around the place...

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

There are two questions that have been asked repeatedly and not answered.

1) When was the car last seen?

2) How long has it been there?

Also

How do you know its not there any more?

How was it secured or stored? Was it secured in a garage or sitting in the front yard under a tarp?

What answers have you gotten from your mate?

The police would not be interested and at most would take a report, but probably won't at this stage as it has not been proven that it even is stolen, and the vehicle appears to be part of a civil dispute, and police do not deal in civil matters, they deal in criminal matters and no crime has been committed at his stage.


This sounds like you only have half the story or possibly less?

What general area/suburb did this occur in?

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by Ibrox90

Awful lot of "Bush lawyers" on this thread

Considering what I do for a living I have a fairly good idea about the legalities and steps taken to recover money.

[Landau Stable]

the car was at the rear of a property, under a tarp. visible from the street with binoculars, only if you knew it was there. it is not there anymore. i have witnessed that much. I need someone to photoshop the car for me. i wll start up a thread. if anyone can help, please do so and pm me. I need to get a photoshop of what it looked like. It will give a better description when asking neighbours if they saw anything, as well as be more recognisable to anyone here who may come across it or jog someones memory.

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

Considering what I do for a living I have a fairly good idea about the legalities and steps taken to recover money.

I doubt the comment was directed at you.

[fmc351]

Unless the OP can say why said property is in trust, the reasons why its being sold are ill-founded. As are the reasons it is held in trust in the first place. Said mate may not be doing anything wrong, or he might be, but its not necessarily so. Trust law is a large body of law that is complex and developed over hundreds of years so this briefish explanation is by no means exhaustive. Boring alert, you have been warned.

There are complications that change the situations described below, but in essence it is the crux of trust law. Ownership of property is basically two parts, use rights and title rights, or in the case of trusts the use rights are essentially financial rights. That premise is the foundation of trusts, splitting the ownership rights. Much like a rental agreement, the tenant has use rights while the owner retains ownership rights, owners rent out the use rights which is why they cant enter the property without due process, entering would be use. They have for money, given up use rights for the period of the agreement. In trusts, a settlor, divests his interest in property to a trustee to hold and maintain for the interests of a beneficiary. It is a fiduciary duty on the trustee to act in the interests of the trust.

A trustee can be a beneficiary and trustee, but not if they are the sole beneficiary. As sole beneficiary and trustee then no trust can exist, it is simple ownership. If they are a joint beneficiary, then they are only entitled to their portion under the trust agreement but have legal rights to dissolve the trust and disperse the financial interests in accordance with the agreement. They cant just keep it.

A trustees personal debts have no legal bearing on the financial interest of trust property. Just as a tenant cant legally sell rented property. A bank cant simply make claim on property held by a trustee in trust. That would defeat the purpose of a trust, to protect assets. It further, and importantly protects those asset(s) from the beneficiary(ies) own debts.

Trustees have been known to abuse the trust, in which case they have misrepresented their ownership rights over the assets. Lawyer up, the trustee has no rights over the financial gains of the trust and is personally liable for any losses by misdeeds.

There are many reasons to use a trust. Like the asset(s) inherited by say a brother and sister with the settlor intending that the property be retained in the family or for one relative to use for a set period of time, say until the youngest has completed school. It could be left to a grandkid, ie: grandparent wants to ensure the property is held for the grandchild(ren) and not sold off for a pool and a nice boat by his own son, so its left to the grandkid via a trust, trustee might be the father. There are many legitimate reasons for placing property in trust. There is nothing inherently dodgey in using a trust, they can very prudent.

It may be one person was made trustee and beneficiary, and the mate just a beneficiary. It may be the trustees desire to liquidate the trust. But a bank simply cant foreclose on trust property unless it has been used as the security itself. Again, if the trustee is just a trustee, they cant use the property as security for their own ends. They must act in the interests of the trust, it is not their property to use as their own, they only have partial right over the asset(s).

While a trustee can physically dispose of assets within the trust, they are legally not entitled to benefit from said sale unless also a beneficiary, in which case only their entitlement under the trust is legally theirs. If sold, the assets become cash, and the cash is the fruit that must be divested to the beneficiary(ies) as per the agreement and the trust is dissolved.


This doesnt help with your car, but may help to dispel some myths about the reasons why the property is held in trust. It is possible your mate had no idea until the very end. Maybe he is still a good mate. The bank would deal with the trustee, not the beneficiary until d day. They have no reason to deal with the beneficiary, he doesnt hold legal control of the title rights. Unless the trustee told him, he could very well have been in the dark. Hopefully you can use this to work out if your mate is being straight with you. No point losing a car, and a good mate if he's done nothing wrong.

[HUNTER8]

1/ the fact that your mate doesn't own the house and the "trustee" owns it and was trying to sell it is a bit suss to start with.
2/ if he didn't own it why is he trying legally to get it back in to his name?
3/ if the bank regards him as a tenant then, I beleive, they would to have had to give him reasonable notice to vacate, not just march in with a sherrif and evict him. This is even in the event he probably didn't have a lease. As the Bank has taken possession of the property they effectively become the landlord and would need to comply with state laws regarding tenant assetts remaining after eviction. Check with the relevant department to see where he stood.
4/ if he had been paying the mortgage all that time the Bank wouldn't suddenly start rejecting his payments. That makes the least sense of eveything your mates telling you.
Who is the trustee?
If your mate was evicted from the property why didn't he let you know so you could come and collect your car?
If you haven't seen the car for a while I'd be doorknocking all the houses in the street to see if anyone knows anything about it.
Keep your eyes on google as well to see if it comes/has come up for sale anywhere.
Personally I think your mate isn't telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[aussiblue]

Awful lot of "Bush lawyers" on this thread

Well it is Forforums.com.au not lawyers.com.au :-) and nobody is charging fees or holding themselves out as experts so the advice has to be accepted as having no warranties albeit given in good faith with the best of intentions.

For myself while I worked in the finance industry and I am an FCPA, as I have been out of the finance industry for 16 years and this (finance and securities) is not an area I work in now so I am happy to admit I am no expert and knowledge of the area could be somewhat dated and my memory a little rusty.

[Matty4]

Have you even spoken to your mate since all this happened?
I think you need to try and get the full story from him to be able to decide which way to go in planning the safe return of the car.

[GT 160]

Sadly, i think your mate has stiched you up. He seems to be the common denomiator which ever way you look at it.