This is an extraxt from Car Crimes UK, it all becomes more complicated if the business has gone into adminisration and there are no funds
Proceeds of Sale Retention
This post shares general information only. It is not legal advice. If you need advice about your own situation, it is best to speak with a qualified lawyer.
The Event
The owner of the vehicle places it with a motor trader to sell.
The appeal of this may be that the trader has a website/advertising/forecourt that will expose the vehicle to more potential buyers, the trader will be able to arrange finance for a prospective purchaser, offer a warranty, etc.
The dealer may further entice them by valuing the vehicle above ‘private sale’ market value (sometimes considerably so), amply addressing the dealer’s commission.
The trader does as instructed; they sell the vehicle along with documents & keys
However, the unscrupulous trader retains the proceeds of the sale, does not remit the agreed proportion of the sale price to the owner
The owner is without the vehicle or funds
The owner reports the matter to the police.
The original owner, as the person currently possessing the vehicle, will be aggrieved.
On occasions, the vehicle is recorded as stolen; in some instances, insurers will consider the vehicle stolen and consider a settlement to their insured. But the conduct raises many questions …
What was stolen? The vehicle or the proceeds of the sale?
Was the offence one of fraud?
Is the matter considered a title dispute
What of the person now in possession of the vehicle, the party to whom the dealer handed the vehicle, sold it?
Who has the best title to the vehicle?
The Timeline
The precise circumstances (dates, times, and actions) may be important for title (ownership) considerations.
Potential offence(s) – also see ‘Case Law & Examples (below)
In the UK, when a motor dealer agrees to sell a vehicle on behalf of an owner for a commission and then fails to remit the proceeds to the owner, the following are often considered:
Theft – It is generally accepted that a person cannot acquire title to stolen property – Nemo data principle / NEM vs Jones. Ofences that are likely to be considered:
Theft Act 1968 – section 5(3): This section addresses situations where property is received under an obligation to deal with it in a particular way. If the dealer sells the car and retains the proceeds, failing to pass them to the owner as agreed, this could constitute theft of the proceeds. The law states:
“Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property shall be regarded… as belonging to the other.” Theft Act 1968 – Section 5(3)
Many original owners will cry ‘theft‘, but is this appropriate, correct? If so, what has been stolen: the vehicle to the proceeds of the sale?
The original owner wanted their vehicle sold. They likely handed over the keys and paperwork (V5C, service records) to the trader. Typically, the trader and original owner entered into an agreement about how much of the proceeds were to be retained by the trader for their assistance.
This is not ‘vehicle theft’ in the traditional sense; the victim has not awoken to find that their vehicle is missing and then reports the loss to the police immediately.
Were the seller’s intentions dishonest from the outset and can this be proved, i.e. is there evidence the trader obtained the vehicle by deception, fraud?
Theft Act s.5(3) – on proceeds belonging to another
Theft Act 1968 s.24A: Les slikley to be considered, the offence relates to the retention of wrongful credit – keeping money they know does not belong to them. Fraud Act 1968 s24A
Fraud Act 2006 – section 1: The dealer’s actions may also fall under fraud by abuse of position if they dishonestly abuse their position to make a gain for themselves or cause a loss to another. Fraud Act 2006 – Section 1
Fraud was considered in a lesser-known matter, that of Lewis v. Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 but it appears the original owner would need to demonstrate:
The trader fraudulently obtained the vehicle, a substantial hurdle to overcome
The timeline caused the contract to be voided; dates & times will be important.
The nature (logic) of the retention means the vehicle was likely sold by the trader and the sale funds were received before any impropriety came to light.
An action that could be said to void the contract would be the reporting of the matter to the police. However, as above, the ‘crime’ generally only comes to light after the sale has occurred.
Fraud Act 2006 – section 4 – CPS Criminal Law Guidance on Fraud
Sale of Goods Act 1979 – section 18
Unless a different intention appears, the rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer can be viewed here.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 – section 23
Sale under voidable title.
When the seller of goods has a voidable title to them, but his title has not been avoided at the time of the sale, the buyer acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good faith and without notice of the seller’s defect of title – s.23 SoGA 1979
The Property Retained
If it is argued ‘theft’ has occurred, theft of what? The answer appears not to be theft of the vehicle, rather the theft (or ‘unlawful retention’) of the sale proceeds.
Similar Case Law
R v Hall [1972]: In this case, a travel agent received deposits from clients for booking holidays but failed to do so and used the money for other purposes. The court held that since there was no obligation to deal with the money in a particular way, it was not theft.
To be placed under such an obligation within this section, there must be an arrangement between the parties that the monies (the property appropriated) should be used in a particular way, such as placing the monies into a separate account, which would give rise to an obligation. R v Hall [1972] – Summary
Shaw & Another v Commissioner of Police: The owner had given the dealer permission to sell the car and provided a transfer notification. That rendered the dealer essentially authorised to sell, although proprietary title remained with the owner until sale. If the contract stipulated title only passes at sale, the owner may have an estoppel argument but still retains proprietary interest until orderly transfer. (Passing of title by non-owner’)
MotorservUK – August 2024 – dealer sold car, failed to pay £5,745 to the estate. Sun newspaper report.
Sales by Non-Owner considerations – LawTeacher.net
Examples:
2025 – Happier Cars Case: The Essex-based dealership, Happier Cars, is being investigated for allegedly selling vehicles on behalf of customers and failing to pass on the proceeds. Over 50 victims claimed losses totalling approximately £740,000. The police launched an investigation into the matter. Police investigating potential fraud at used car dealership & ITV – ‘Happier’ support group.
2024 – Deemster Graeme Cook GMB Automotive Limited: Various scams (£840,000). ‘In some cases, he sold or part-exchanged cars on behalf of customers but failed to pass on the proceeds, or took money for vehicles that were not handed over’. Sentenced to imprisonment. BBC
2022 – Gotham Motor Group: of Nelson, Lancashire, an article links them to CVF Rochdale andmakes reference to SoR. CarDealerMagazine. The article links ‘Gotham’ to CVF Rochdale said to have taken cars in part-exchange and not settling outstanding finance agreements – read more here.
2017 – Ashley-Carter: agreed to sell prestige cars on behalf of clients in exchange for a small commission on the sales. But instead, he kept all the money. He was jailed – Henley Standard
Dealer’s Financial Hardship’
What if you have left your vehicle with a trader who encounters financial difficulty?
29/08/2025 – Supercar dealer GVE London* has applied to the High Court with a Notice of Intention to Appoint Administrators (GVE 09/2025 statement) apparently after discovering ‘quite a substantial fraud within the business‘.
It is claimed ‘customers who had entrusted GVE London to sell their cars have been attempting to get their cars back‘ and reported the ‘dealership’s car park was ‘full of irate owners’ as people attempted to get their cars back from the business‘. – Car Dealer Magazine & The Sun.
10/09/2025 –
https://gvelondon.com/ – ‘Service Temporarily Unavailable’
04/09/2025 – appointment of a liquidator – Parker Getty Limited Devonshire House, 582 Honeypot Lane Stanmore HA7 1JS
07/2025 – Inside GVE London: We meet the team behind the luxury supercar dealership – Car Dealer Magazine
Guidance for insolvency practitioners on how to approach regulated firms can be read here and ‘Technical guidance for Official Receivers – ’27. Motor Vehicles’, can be read here.
Insurance
In support of such matters commonly falling to ‘fraud’ and not ‘theft’ (not theft of the vehicle) but that it is the proceeds of the sale that have been ‘taken’ (withheld), a claim for theft under a motor insurance policy is unlikely to succeed.
Police
Such matters should be reported to the police asap. Constabulary arguments such as ‘no crime, a civil dispute’ may be negated by evidencing post-theft events – obviously that no funds have been received, but also a lack of interaction with the trader who may have shut up shop.
Press reports of multiple vehicles being involved may negate any argument by the garage that their business failed and funds are gone due to poor management, cash flow problems etc.
Is it likely that the victim is isolated, or are there more victims; can others be protected by prompt police action?
Should the police seize the vehicle from the party in possession of it – likely not! Aside of finding themselves joined into the possession chain, is there a need to do so?
Other Considerations
Mercantile Agent Factors Act 1889.
There is the exception in the Factors Act 1889, where a mercantile agent with the consent of the owner, in possession of the goods, acts in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent – making sale a valid transaction as if the owner of the goods made the transaction provided the third party takes the goods in good faith.
