united-kingdom civil-law burden-of-proof
In civil claims is there any requirment for the claimant to prove ownership of assets in question?
<p>As title, in a civil claim is there any general requirement for the claimant to positively demonstrate ownership over the assets in question?  Or any specific rules that apply to car claims after an accident?</p>
<p>The specific case that gives rise to the question arises as a result of a car accident in which one party (the defendant) accepts full responsibility.  The defendants insurance company refuses to accept any offer that does not include provision of an image of the V5 (log book) and proof of ownership.  The claimant has neither document, and has made offers that involve one of; the claimant giving a signed document as to their ownership of the vehicle, acquiring the V5 after the claim (and therefore delaying the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to the insurance company until this has occurred), or the insurance company paying car hire for the time it takes to acquire the V5.  From the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-log-book" rel="nofollow noreferrer">web site</a> this is likely to be &quot;within 6 weeks&quot;.  None of these has been acceptable, and it now looks like the claim will go to court for the simple lack of this document which is impossible for the claimant to prove in a timely manner and is likely valueless to the insurance company.  The claimant is the owner and registered keeper, it is just a question of the time and costs in getting documentary proof of this fact.  It is worth noting that the value of the car is quite low, such that the costs of getting the V5 (£25) and filling a claim (£85) is significant with respect to the amount of money being claimed.</p>

<p>In civil cases the <a href="https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/glossary/standard-and-burden-of-proof/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">burden of proof</a> is generally on the claimant to prove that their claim is true &quot;on the balance of probabilities&quot; (i.e. more likely to be true than not)</p>
<p>There's a requirement for the claimant to prove <em>damages</em>, (i.e. the monetary loss they've suffered as a result of the defendant's actions), in the case of damage to property this isn't necessarily going to involve proving that you <em>own</em> the property that was damaged but rather that you suffered a loss as a result of the harm to that property.</p>
<p>Obviously in the case of assets proving ownership is one way to do this - and arguably the most simple.</p>
<p>Given we're talking about a car here there's more to unpack - after all it's rather common for people <strong>not</strong> to actually own &quot;their&quot; cars but still be in a position to suffer losses when that car is damaged.</p>
<p>A logbook (or <a href="https://www.safedrivingforlife.info/blog/cars/v5c-what-it-and-why-it-important/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">V5C</a> to its' friends) doesn't actually prove ownership (just who the &quot;Registered Keeper&quot; is), that said it can form part of an overall picture towards that &quot;balance of probabilities&quot; I mentioned earlier. For example if the claimant has a V5C indicating that they're the registered keeper (and were at the time of the loss), the addresses match, the vehicle has no outstanding finance against it and isn't reported stolen (shown via a <a href="https://www.hpi.co.uk/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">HPI</a> check or similar) and no other putative owners are claiming otherwise then I'd be surprised if that wasn't sufficient to meet that balance of probabilities test. Of course a bill of sale and matching bank statements would go a long way too!</p>
<p>Likewise a car <strong>not</strong> actually owned might still be claimable about - so long as the claimant has suffered a loss. If the car is leased or on a Hire Purchase agreement the claimant doesn't <em>own</em> the car, but they're still financially on the hook for it, and a in that case a copy of the agreement, bank statements showing payments for it and the V5C is probably going to be enough there.</p>
<p><strong>Not having the V5C</strong></p>
<p>Where (as in this case) the owner and registered keeper is unable to produce the V5C because they've lost it, dog ate it or whatever. That's really the claimant's problem - they were the one responsible for the document and the defendant had zero influence on that with their actions.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>acquiring the V5 after the claim (and therefore delaying the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to the insurance company until this has occurred)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If (and I accept it's a big &quot;if&quot;) the claimant succeeds in establishing their losses on the car without the V5C it's not actually required when selling/transferring - it can be done in writing to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/sold-bought-vehicle/y/no/sold-it/sold-it-to-a-motor-trader" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DVLA</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>the insurance company paying car hire for the time it takes to acquire the V5</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Never going to happen - this would be a clear example of a cost to the claimant that resulted from the claimant's own actions. The defendant didn't lose the V5C.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>From the web site this is likely to be &quot;within 6 weeks&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not really relevant to the legal aspects but applying online can get it done in <a href="https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-log-book" rel="nofollow noreferrer">5 working days</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is worth noting that the value of the car is quite low, such that the costs of getting the V5 (£25) and filling a claim (£85) is significant with respect to the amount of money being claimed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As with the &quot;car hire&quot; point above the £25 cost is ultimately the claimant's problem. The filing and trial fees can be recovered from the defendant if the claimant wins.</p>
<p><strong>PS:</strong> I'm not sure if this is a real or hypothetical situation - but this is one that has me scratching my head as to why this isn't going through insurance? The claimant's insurance company has already <em>de facto</em> accepted the policy holder's assertion of an insurable interest in the vehicle at the inception of the policy and  absent a really good reason to question it themselves (i.e. where they think showing the policy holder lied to them is going to save them having to pay out) it would generally never even come up.</p>
