13 ms·

The main issue here I guess, is Tesla assisting the bailiffs. Bailiffs (here in the UK) have certain legal rights to enter and repossess your house and/or remov

The main issue here I guess, is Tesla assisting the bailiffs. Bailiffs (here in the UK) have certain legal rights to enter and repossess your house and/or remove property you haven't fully paid for. They are granted this right via a case-by-case court order. If Telsa are also granted the rights within the court order to assist the bailiffs, then presumably it would be a fully legal action. At the end of the day, you sign a contract wherein you agree to keep up payments on an item, and if you don't the item will be repossessed. If you don't like those terms, don't get stuff on payment plans.

staticassertion 5y ago
I agree, though I think that ideally companies are advocates for their customers. For example, companies have to turn information over to courts, but they can push back on some, and publish transparency reports for others. Yes, they have to comply with the law, but imo a company has an obligation to advocate for their customers.
- simonh 5y ago
  Tesla were helping the legal owner of one of their vehicles take possession of it. If you were the legal owner, wouldn't you want that?
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    The legal owner and the Tesla customer don't have to be the same person.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  Well, technically, the bank owns the car till you pay it off. So, maybe they are advocating for their customers?
  - simonh 5y ago
    I don't think that's quite right, you own the vehicle legally and you owe the bank the loan. However as soon as a repossession takes place the legal title to the vehicle does change.
    - KptMarchewa 5y ago
      Isn't it reversed: that the repossession takes place because the legal title to the vehicle changed, due to the contract being broken by lack of payment?
      - simonh 5y ago
        Correct. I meant when the repossession order is issued.
        jemfinch 5y ago
        This isn't how it works in the US. In the US, the car is titled to the bank until the loan is paid in full, then the bank transfers the title to you.
        simonh 5y ago
        Ah, my apologies. I'm a Brit.
        refurb 5y ago
        Is that state specific? I recall some banks holding liens against titles instead? I recall buying a used car where the bank lien had to be removed prior to transfer.
        foobarian 5y ago
        It could be we're not distinguishing lease vs. finance in these threads. In my experience in Massachusetts, lease titles were in a holding company's name, while financed vehicles were in my own. P.S. Looking around a bit there is a lot of variation on how this works depending on locale. So I guess lease vs. finance is just another way things can differ out there.
  - sys_64738 5y ago
    The bank uses title of vehicle as collateral. You own the vehicle but allow repossession for failing to clear the debt. But just because the car is repossessed doesn’t clear the debt unless the vehicle covers the debt wholly. Bank will sue for the difference.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      The UK has some tricky loan contract law which allows a lender to do this, unless the purchaser challenges it in court it using a very specific procedure - which of course most of the population doesn't know about. Many people are surprised by this. They assume repossession means the loan is paid off - until they discover they've lost their car and are still on the hook for more or less the current market value.
  - joncrocks 5y ago
    This depends on the jurisdiction and the agreement you've entered into. In general: Lease - Finance company owns the asset, you are obliged to service the payments. You may have an option to transfer title at the end of the period (depending on jurisdiction). Loan - You own the asset, secured against the asset. (There are some UK/US-specfic product types due to difference in things like tax law) Leasing (in general) is popular as it has tax-advantages for smaller businesses/individuals around depreciation, which can lead to good pricing for end lessee. (source: Made software for the asset finance industry for a decade or so in the UK/EU + US)
    - GauntletWizard 5y ago
      At the time of repossession - You no longer own the asset. It's not like they send the repossession guy out the first time you miss a payment. Repossession happens after the bank has taken you to court (Admittedly, through an expedited process, because this type of claim is so so common), and the repo guy is acting as an agent of the court. This is the law. It is working as intended. It's also moral - If you enter into a contract to buy something on credit, you should uphold your end of the contract. Specific instances have been wrong, and we can argue the merits of this particular case, but car manufacturers assisting the new owners of assets that have been repossessed in securing their asset is at worst morally neutral.
  - teh_klev 5y ago
    In the UK there's a couple of ways this works: 1. Unsecured loan - if you have the credit facility available then you can borrow an unsecured amount of money and purchase a car. Neither the seller nor the bank have any ownership interest in the car. The loan isn't secured on the car. You are free to sell the car on and transfer its title to anyone else. If you default on the loan then different proceedings may take place to recover the money owed, but that may not necessarily include re-possessing the car (if it's valued under GBP3000.00). The loan company can come after any of your assets. 2. Hire Purchase - the seller lends you through a credit company the price of the car (and interest). The seller transfers the title of the to the credit company. You do not become the "owner" of the car, instead you rent it until such time the total amount of the loan is paid off. You don't have any right to sell or transfer ownership of the car. If you do the unfortunate buyer of the car may wake up one morning to find that it's been repossessed. This is why as a buyer performing HPI checks for any outstanding hire purchase or secured loans on the car are fairly important. There are also other schemes such as leasing which make it more obvious that if you don't keep up with the payments then the seller or finance company can come along and repossess the car.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    In nine states, this is not legally accurate. In those states, you have the title and the bank has a lien on the title.
- netcan 5y ago
  To take a contradicting pov... I think this sort of expectation/ideal has done us more harm than helped. As advocates, companies are fickle and unreliable. Presenting as advocates, companies always stress how aligned their interests are with customers'. We'll, that's true until it isn't. Once it isn't, it flips. That's useless. Better to keep in mind that companies aren't your advocates. They're your salesman.
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    I agree that relying on companies to be advocates out of good will is not a good strategy.
    - netcan 5y ago
      Yes, but I also think that betting on aligned interests isn't great either... beyond the short term. A Google, FB or Tesla just isn't structurally built for that.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    The principle-agent problem is not just limited to companies. Everything you've written applies to people in general. Advocacy in and and of itself is a fickle enterprise.
Joker_vD 5y ago
> If Telsa are also granted the rights within the court order to assist the bailiffs From what limited knowledge of law enforcement I have (and it's very little, I admit), it's reversed: everyone by default is legally obliged to assist a law officer, on their request, to enforce the law and order; there are some limits beyond which explicit court orders are required, but those limits are rather broad.
- junon 5y ago
  This is an assumption based on current events and climate toward LEOs and is very far from the truth. There are very clear boundaries for assisting with law enforcement. Warrants are not magical documents that allow anything to happen.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  > everyone by default is legally obliged to assist a law officer, Are bailiffs law officers in that sense?
Retric 5y ago
Most US car dealerships will make a new key for someone repossessing a car. As Tesla is the dealership this seems like the exact same situation, the only difference is someone with the key can now remote summon the car.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > someone with the key can now remote summon the car Cars with remote summons features today basically just crawl forward a few metres to help you get out of a parking spot. They aren't self-driving across town to a repossession lot, if that's what you're thinking.
  - ctdonath 5y ago
    A first step. Won’t be long before the car goes to the repossession lot itself. Tesla is evolving country music: not only will your girl leave you, so will your truck.
    - jchw 5y ago
      I don’t usually vote up comments that are mostly humorous on HN, but there’s always an exception. To me the problem isn’t that they might, but that they can. I guess the fault is technically on the person who rented something under terrible terms, but the problem to me is that over time terrible terms seem to win out over reasonable ones. Not to mention, if Tesla is capable of doing this for rentals, I have to assume they are capable of doing it for any Tesla. Which is not great.
      - Moru 5y ago
        Or that any hacker that gets into Teslas system will have a field day.
        errcorrectcode 5y ago
        Mass theft, bricking, or actual crashing potential. It's a Futurama episode/ Sword of Damocles waiting to happen.
Ajedi32 5y ago
The "main issue" is that Tesla is even able to assist the bailiffs in this manner. If a remote party can, by design, lock you out of your car and take control of it without your consent, do you even really own the vehicle in the first place? Others have argued "well, you don't own the car, the bank does", but unless Tesla is somehow unable to do this with cars not owned by a lienholder, that's kinda beside the point as far as I'm concerned.
- mikeryan 5y ago
  In the US a financed car is “owned” by the bank until fully paid off - which most of the time is a subsidiary of the manufacturer. A lot of Teslas are also just leased.
  - mdoms 5y ago
    Did you really not read the last sentence of the comment you responded to?
  - dangerbird2 5y ago
    It's not owned by the bank until you foreclose, after which it's most certainly owned by the bank. As an aside, how often is it for the manufacturer/dealer to own the bank that issues auto loans. I got mine from Capital One, and I assumed most auto loans outside of the sketchy loanshark used car dealers were issued by the big national banks
    - nomel 5y ago
      Why is this comment being downvoted? It appears to be correct.
    - mikeryan 5y ago
      In most states the financing bank owns the title to the car and is the "Legal Owner" as opposed to the "Registered Owner" who is the one who is buying the car. The used market is likely different but for new cars from Dealerships, GM Financial, Toyota Financial, Ford Credit etc are Billion Dollar subsidiaries.

staticassertion 5y ago

I agree, though I think that ideally companies are advocates for their customers. For example, companies have to turn information over to courts, but they can push back on some, and publish transparency reports for others. Yes, they have to comply with the law, but imo a company has an obligation to advocate for their customers.

simonh 5y ago
Tesla were helping the legal owner of one of their vehicles take possession of it. If you were the legal owner, wouldn't you want that?
- staticassertion 5y ago
  The legal owner and the Tesla customer don't have to be the same person.
scoopertrooper 5y ago
Well, technically, the bank owns the car till you pay it off. So, maybe they are advocating for their customers?
- simonh 5y ago
  I don't think that's quite right, you own the vehicle legally and you owe the bank the loan. However as soon as a repossession takes place the legal title to the vehicle does change.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    Isn't it reversed: that the repossession takes place because the legal title to the vehicle changed, due to the contract being broken by lack of payment?
    - simonh 5y ago
      Correct. I meant when the repossession order is issued.
      - jemfinch 5y ago
        This isn't how it works in the US. In the US, the car is titled to the bank until the loan is paid in full, then the bank transfers the title to you.
        simonh 5y ago
        Ah, my apologies. I'm a Brit.
        refurb 5y ago
        Is that state specific? I recall some banks holding liens against titles instead? I recall buying a used car where the bank lien had to be removed prior to transfer.
        foobarian 5y ago
        It could be we're not distinguishing lease vs. finance in these threads. In my experience in Massachusetts, lease titles were in a holding company's name, while financed vehicles were in my own. P.S. Looking around a bit there is a lot of variation on how this works depending on locale. So I guess lease vs. finance is just another way things can differ out there.
- sys_64738 5y ago
  The bank uses title of vehicle as collateral. You own the vehicle but allow repossession for failing to clear the debt. But just because the car is repossessed doesn’t clear the debt unless the vehicle covers the debt wholly. Bank will sue for the difference.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    The UK has some tricky loan contract law which allows a lender to do this, unless the purchaser challenges it in court it using a very specific procedure - which of course most of the population doesn't know about. Many people are surprised by this. They assume repossession means the loan is paid off - until they discover they've lost their car and are still on the hook for more or less the current market value.
- joncrocks 5y ago
  This depends on the jurisdiction and the agreement you've entered into. In general: Lease - Finance company owns the asset, you are obliged to service the payments. You may have an option to transfer title at the end of the period (depending on jurisdiction). Loan - You own the asset, secured against the asset. (There are some UK/US-specfic product types due to difference in things like tax law) Leasing (in general) is popular as it has tax-advantages for smaller businesses/individuals around depreciation, which can lead to good pricing for end lessee. (source: Made software for the asset finance industry for a decade or so in the UK/EU + US)
  - GauntletWizard 5y ago
    At the time of repossession - You no longer own the asset. It's not like they send the repossession guy out the first time you miss a payment. Repossession happens after the bank has taken you to court (Admittedly, through an expedited process, because this type of claim is so so common), and the repo guy is acting as an agent of the court. This is the law. It is working as intended. It's also moral - If you enter into a contract to buy something on credit, you should uphold your end of the contract. Specific instances have been wrong, and we can argue the merits of this particular case, but car manufacturers assisting the new owners of assets that have been repossessed in securing their asset is at worst morally neutral.
- teh_klev 5y ago
  In the UK there's a couple of ways this works: 1. Unsecured loan - if you have the credit facility available then you can borrow an unsecured amount of money and purchase a car. Neither the seller nor the bank have any ownership interest in the car. The loan isn't secured on the car. You are free to sell the car on and transfer its title to anyone else. If you default on the loan then different proceedings may take place to recover the money owed, but that may not necessarily include re-possessing the car (if it's valued under GBP3000.00). The loan company can come after any of your assets. 2. Hire Purchase - the seller lends you through a credit company the price of the car (and interest). The seller transfers the title of the to the credit company. You do not become the "owner" of the car, instead you rent it until such time the total amount of the loan is paid off. You don't have any right to sell or transfer ownership of the car. If you do the unfortunate buyer of the car may wake up one morning to find that it's been repossessed. This is why as a buyer performing HPI checks for any outstanding hire purchase or secured loans on the car are fairly important. There are also other schemes such as leasing which make it more obvious that if you don't keep up with the payments then the seller or finance company can come along and repossess the car.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  In nine states, this is not legally accurate. In those states, you have the title and the bank has a lien on the title.
netcan 5y ago
To take a contradicting pov... I think this sort of expectation/ideal has done us more harm than helped. As advocates, companies are fickle and unreliable. Presenting as advocates, companies always stress how aligned their interests are with customers'. We'll, that's true until it isn't. Once it isn't, it flips. That's useless. Better to keep in mind that companies aren't your advocates. They're your salesman.
- staticassertion 5y ago
  I agree that relying on companies to be advocates out of good will is not a good strategy.
  - netcan 5y ago
    Yes, but I also think that betting on aligned interests isn't great either... beyond the short term. A Google, FB or Tesla just isn't structurally built for that.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  The principle-agent problem is not just limited to companies. Everything you've written applies to people in general. Advocacy in and and of itself is a fickle enterprise.

Joker_vD 5y ago

> If Telsa are also granted the rights within the court order to assist the bailiffs From what limited knowledge of law enforcement I have (and it's very little, I admit), it's reversed: everyone by default is legally obliged to assist a law officer, on their request, to enforce the law and order; there are some limits beyond which explicit court orders are required, but those limits are rather broad.

junon 5y ago
This is an assumption based on current events and climate toward LEOs and is very far from the truth. There are very clear boundaries for assisting with law enforcement. Warrants are not magical documents that allow anything to happen.
kwhitefoot 5y ago
> everyone by default is legally obliged to assist a law officer, Are bailiffs law officers in that sense?

Retric 5y ago

Most US car dealerships will make a new key for someone repossessing a car. As Tesla is the dealership this seems like the exact same situation, the only difference is someone with the key can now remote summon the car.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> someone with the key can now remote summon the car Cars with remote summons features today basically just crawl forward a few metres to help you get out of a parking spot. They aren't self-driving across town to a repossession lot, if that's what you're thinking.
- ctdonath 5y ago
  A first step. Won’t be long before the car goes to the repossession lot itself. Tesla is evolving country music: not only will your girl leave you, so will your truck.
  - jchw 5y ago
    I don’t usually vote up comments that are mostly humorous on HN, but there’s always an exception. To me the problem isn’t that they might, but that they can. I guess the fault is technically on the person who rented something under terrible terms, but the problem to me is that over time terrible terms seem to win out over reasonable ones. Not to mention, if Tesla is capable of doing this for rentals, I have to assume they are capable of doing it for any Tesla. Which is not great.
    - Moru 5y ago
      Or that any hacker that gets into Teslas system will have a field day.
      - errcorrectcode 5y ago
        Mass theft, bricking, or actual crashing potential. It's a Futurama episode/ Sword of Damocles waiting to happen.

Ajedi32 5y ago

The "main issue" is that Tesla is even able to assist the bailiffs in this manner. If a remote party can, by design, lock you out of your car and take control of it without your consent, do you even really own the vehicle in the first place? Others have argued "well, you don't own the car, the bank does", but unless Tesla is somehow unable to do this with cars not owned by a lienholder, that's kinda beside the point as far as I'm concerned.

mikeryan 5y ago
In the US a financed car is “owned” by the bank until fully paid off - which most of the time is a subsidiary of the manufacturer. A lot of Teslas are also just leased.
- mdoms 5y ago
  Did you really not read the last sentence of the comment you responded to?
- dangerbird2 5y ago
  It's not owned by the bank until you foreclose, after which it's most certainly owned by the bank. As an aside, how often is it for the manufacturer/dealer to own the bank that issues auto loans. I got mine from Capital One, and I assumed most auto loans outside of the sketchy loanshark used car dealers were issued by the big national banks
  - nomel 5y ago
    Why is this comment being downvoted? It appears to be correct.
  - mikeryan 5y ago
    In most states the financing bank owns the title to the car and is the "Legal Owner" as opposed to the "Registered Owner" who is the one who is buying the car. The used market is likely different but for new cars from Dealerships, GM Financial, Toyota Financial, Ford Credit etc are Billion Dollar subsidiaries.