[Jaruzel]

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.

[Retric]

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]

> 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]

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]

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.

[usefulcat]

> over time terrible terms seem to win out over reasonable ones

Tyranny of the marketplace, I guess. If most people are not bothered by the terrible terms, then the selection of items with non-terrible terms will be correspondingly small.

Case in point: I'd like to buy a TV (even at a higher price) that does not have ads all over the interface. From what I can tell, as of right now there are approximately a handful of such TVs, not counting older models that probably aren't produced any more. And of course out of that handful, most are not very good in other respects..

I don't know how to solve that apart from regulation, which is often a very poor solution.

[stalfosknight]

My solution is to never setup wifi or provide ethernet to my TVs. They can't vomit ads all over the screen or track what you're watching if they can't get online.

[HideousKojima]

Buy industrial signage displays. You'll be paying a significant premium but it's basically the only way to get a high quality non-smart tv these days.

[Moru]

Or that any hacker that gets into Teslas system will have a field day.

[errcorrectcode]

Mass theft, bricking, or actual crashing potential. It's a Futurama episode/ Sword of Damocles waiting to happen.

[voakbasda]

The house always wins. Contract terms almost always give favor the issuer.

[tssva]

If you don't pay us as agreed, we will take it back are terrible terms?

[jchw]

You omitted the parts that are actually problematic.

I don’t give my mortgage company a copy of the keys to my house.

[oconnor663]

Ha. Though my guess is, once self-driving is reliable enough to do that, the economics of car ownership are going to flip completely. It won't make sense anymore to have a car that spends most of its time sitting unused in your garage.

[romwell]

Imagine, now, that self-driving combined with Uber pool, so that people who need to get from and to the same destinations at the same time (as is typical for commutes) would be able to share the ride.

Imagine then making those vehicles larger to enable not only a decrease in traffic, but an increase in housing density, local infrastructure in walking distance, and economic growth.

Imagine if we then realized we could charge that elongated car as it's driving if we put electric lines above streets.

Oh, and why not increase rolling efficiency while we're at that, and make the task of self-driving simpler by embedding signaling infrastructure into the road itself.

You just imagined buses, trolley buses, and streetcars respectively.

Which is what makes the most sense, and will continue making the most sense for vehicles that don't sit in your garage most of the time.

There's more to car ownership than being able to get from A to B in principle.

Once you add immediate availability, individual vehicle preferences, having your stuff in the car already, the ability to keep your stuff there once you arrive at your destination, never having to think about small, but normal usage damage (especially if you have kids), or, conversely, having the vehicle just as clean as you want it...

...you will see that garages aren't going anywhere any time soon, self-driving cars or not.

And that we'd be wise to develop actual public transport infrastructure for the people who really do only care about getting from A to B, with some acceptable wait time. It's a win-win for everyone.

My pessimistic prognosis is that the development of the self-driving car will make the taxis slightly cheaper, but instead of paying your Uber driver, you're going to be paying engineers, maintenance, and cleaning staff.

[ljm]

Imagine how different the US would be if it was Big Public Transportation that lobbied to have towns and cities designed around them, rather than the car industry. Walking, cycling, buses, trams, trains, etc. etc. You'd still have cars but they wouldn't be a basic need for survival like they're often treated as, because you can't get anywhere without one.

Because it was basically 100 years ago when the car industry sought to dismantle that infrastructure, and succeeded.

[fallingknife]

The fact that Uber is so popular even though it is more than 10x the price of a bus shows exactly how much people want to ride buses.

[ASalazarMX]

Imagine calling a self-driving taxi that doesn't know someone puked on the back seat.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

People keep saying this, but I don't get it. The majority of your possessions spend most of their time sitting idle. Even if I just look at the higher value ones: my riding lawnmower gets used for a couple of hours every few weeks, my garden tractor/snowblower even less frequently, then I've got a trailer, a truck, miscellaneous tools, etc.

I could rent every single one of these, but don't because the economics don't make sense, and the use model would otherwise lead to a lot of inconvenience.

[angry-sw-dev]

The lynchpin in these arguments is that you'll somehow be able to summon a vehicle on a moments notice and all your usage will still be less expensive than personal ownership. The cost will be low because no humans are involved...

Except it didn't work for ZipCar or the rental agencies that have added hourly options -- sure it's not bad, but is it really pushing people out of car ownership? No...

Ride sharing similarly hasn't worked to push people out of car ownership either -- it's just killed traditional taxi services by compensating drivers less and eliminating the flag down monopoly some cities have maintained (a taxi medallion in Boston/NYC used to be worth hundreds of thousands... no one wants them now)

All these share options work for low use scenarios like the city dweller who wants a weekly trip to a shopping center, but for the daily commuter/driver it won't ever make sense... and it'll never make sense for those that need to keep things in their car like child seats, diapers, a walker, tools, etc...

Bike/Scooter shares haven't eliminated personal ownership either because of the scarcity issue at peak times.

[tomc1985]

It's the same crap preached by the cloud infrastructure folks trying to get everyone on a rental/sharecropping model. Ah those sweet rents

[lotsofpulp]

It depends how easily they can be cleaned of others’ odors and messes, and how often they need to get cleaned.

Presumably if the rate of mess is low enough and there are extra cars, you would just request a new one. Then they punish the person who left the mess or odor, disincentivizing them from doing it again. Probably need cameras monitoring the inside of the car.

[ghaff]

It's not so much messes. Rentals, including short-term ones, are a thing today. But rather there's a lot of value to many people to have the car that they want when they want it, leaving certain belongings in the car, having the car equipped for their purposes whether child seats or roof racks, etc.

While I honestly don't expect door to door self driving in most places for decades, a lot of people who don't use cars much probably underestimate the degree to which many people customize their vehicles. And even if they sit a lot of the time, most of the cost is often in miles, not time.

[db65edfc7996]

In a world where car ownership is limited, I can imagine that the car interiors would be changed drastically. Something like a subway car with hard plastic seats and easily sanitized surfaces.

[MisterBastahrd]

That is only going to happen for most people if the economics of car rentals are VEEEEEERRY reasonable. I am not willing to wait 10 minutes for an available vehicle every time I need to go somewhere. People who are dreaming of a day of full automation need to take this into account, because while I don't know how long the average trip by car is, I suspect that it's somewhere in the 15-20 minute range, which is impossible to match even with a fully autonomous driving scheme that can ignore things like stop lights and stop signs.

[fallingknife]

Uber now is rarely 10 minutes or more. Usually <5 if you're in a major city.

[tomc1985]

Every body says this but how many of us are going to want randos treating our vehicles like shit because its a rental?

[earleybird]

Vehicles are more than a transport service; they are also, for example, a place to keep your stuff while you run errands.

[dylan604]

To further this, what are the parameters before requesting the RTB option? If the car is currently driving (assuming the "owner" is currently using the car), will it reroute with them in as an involuntary passenger? Before attempting to RTB, will it determine the route and distance necessary and determine the amount of charge required and then verify there's enough? Will the car need to be in park for a minimum amount of time first? What if it's parked and I'm loading my small child into a car seat when the RTB order is issued? Will it start driving away with my kid? What if the car is currently plugged in when the RTB is ordered? Will it rip out the charging cable and cause further damage to the car or my house? Who will be responsible for that damage?

Soooo many questions.

[angry-sw-dev]

It's reasonable to assume an open door will prevent movement...

...being plugged in to a charger (that doesn't have some sort of automated disconnect) would also be disable.

The question is valid though after you've put the kid in and you're on 30 second excursion to push the shopping carriage back... what if the car is recalled? Seems like a potential disaster and tragedy.

[dylan604]

What if your dog is in the truck? Can you then go after them for kidnapping?

[dentemple]

Dogs aren't considered people (in the US), so it would be considered stolen property _at best_ if this were an actual thing.

Likely, they'll pass the animal on to a shelter and give you the info as to where to pick them up. It wouldn't be considered "stealing".

[dylan604]

To this point, after crossing the state line from Nevada into California, there are highway signs that state the fines for littering and abadoning an animal on the side of the highway. The fine for littering is significantly higher than animal abandonment.

[MisterBastahrd]

This depends entirely on how quickly they get to the vehicle, but given the money involved, I'm sure they will just lobby to have the death of the dog pinned on the owner.

[notreallyserio]

I'm hopeful that by the time cars can be automatically repossessed without a human operator they'll have set up a network of on-demand rentals and I won't have to worry about car ownership and all the nonsense it entails.

[Larrikin]

Do you actually prefer the subscription hell we are in now with companies like Adobe deciding we can no longer actually own any software and have to continuously rent it?

Google actually seems like they will be first to full self driving. My biggest fear is that they continue to have zero interest in being an actual car company and keep all their Waymo tech locked behind their taxis and Lyfts are replaced by Waymos with no reduction in price, just a loss job for the person who would normally drive the Lyft. Other companies follow suit and the self driving car dream is ruined to make C suite executives richer.

[notreallyserio]

> Do you actually prefer the subscription hell we are in now with companies like Adobe deciding we can no longer actually own any software and have to continuously rent it?

No, I don't prefer software subscriptions with monthly fees. I don't find the "maintenance" required for software annoying or onerous. However, I really don't like car maintenance. Waiting for an oil change, tire replacement or rotation, or really any repair is the worst part of car ownership and I could die happy never having to do any of that again. I don't place a lot of value on ownership in general because of maintenance or storage burdens.

I do like pay-as-you-go for most of the stuff I use, for whatever it's worth. Food, electricity, gas, that sort of thing. I use cabs when I go on vacation and look for opportunities to travel by bus, train, or plane instead of driving. A self-serve on-demand auto rental service would be ideal, for me.

[josefx]

Usually rental anything is a lot more costly in the long run than outright ownership. So someone getting his Tesla repossessed probably wont be any better of trying to rent one. Thought my biggest problem with large scale car rentals are times like rush hour where nearly everyone needs a car at the same time, so there either has to be a giant capacity or you have to rely on most people still having their own car.

[flutas]

> Cars with remote summons features today basically just crawl forward a few metres to help you get out of a parking spot.

Smart summon on a M3 (what the article is talking about) can back out and navigate parking lots... although horribly and slowly. But it's not just a straight line.

[spike021]

One time someone did this in a Costco parking lot from 2 rows away from me and my parked car. It pulled out of its spot 3 spaces away from my car, started doing a u-turn that would've had it hit my car in order to drive through the row of parking spots. I was standing in front of my car wondering where the eff the driver was (obviously it was smart summon but in the heat of the moment...). Lots of families go to Costco, I could've easily had a small child with me next to my car and we would've been about 8 or so feet from being hit by a car that apparently had no idea I was there.

[d0gsg0w00f]

The worst part about this for me is that the Costco parking lot is already a cluster without having to add in the "show off my car to my brother in law" game to the mix.

I avoid Costco like the plague because the experience is always bad for my mental health. I'd rather pay a few extra bucks to avoid oblivious giant cart drivers, having to show multiple forms of ID , having my receipt validated before I can leave, having to figure out how to transport stuff to and from car, etc. Plus, there is no consistency in the non-grocery inventory. You're forced into the "we _have_ to buy these pans today because we never know when they'll be available again!" psychological trap.

It's just a very inconvenient shopping experience in my opinion. But I know I'm the only person in America who feels this way.

[AtlasBarfed]

I wouldn't disagree with your experience complaint, but Costco exists precisely because it doesn't care about the "shopping experience". If you go to Costco, you forgo the right to complain about the "shopping experience" because you are explicitly choosing something with a bad one in exchange for very cheap goods.

Walmart and Target: slightly better experience, slightly more expensive.

Supermarkets and Malls: better experience, more expensive

So I guess, you aren't the only person in America, but people make the choice to accept the burden for the price savings.

[MomoXenosaga]

My problem is that when a driver hits a small child they go to jail. Are there any consequences for Tesla when they get it wrong? A small dent in share prices that day doesn't cut it for me.

[hunterb123]

Yes, if they were ruled at fault, just like any other company.

If the operator was ruled at fault, they would receive consequences.

Are you insinuating that Tesla operates on a higher level than the law and is receiving special privileges vs other automakers, or are you saying all automakers should be more accountable? What event are you pointing to they should be more accountable for? Or is this all just a vague hypothetical?

[achenatx]

when someone in a car hits a child they do not go to jail

[C19is20]

Can confirm. When my dad often one-handedly turned around and beat the living crap out of me and my two sisters in the back seat, whilst also one-handedly driving down the autostrada, the most he ever got was a stern look from my mum who was smoking at the time.

[skellera]

While I’m not saying summon is a great feature, it would not have hit the things you’re mentioning.

Its major flaw is thin upright things like small trees or poles (although this may be better on vision only cars, I’m not sure). If it sees a person or child in its path, it’s just going to stop.

[angry-sw-dev]

> While I’m not saying summon is a great feature, it would not have hit the things you’re mentioning.

...and auto pilot won't drive into giant barriers in the middle of well-marked, and mapped, highway divide either, right?

[Izkata]

From someone who automatic doors wouldn't react to as a thin teenager, this isn't very reassuring.

[spike021]

Considering the wall of parked cars it was attempting to do a u-turn into, I'd say you're wrong.

[w0m]

You can do dumb summon (straight forward/backword) with the key; not smart summon. The description in the article is consistent with what you could do with the key; likely article author misunderstanding the feature (easy mistake).

[captainredbeard]

> Smart summon on a M3

M3 = BMW M3

Model 3 = what you're talking bout

[throwawayboise]

I could see that if they are holding the financing. If the car is financed by a third party, I cannot imagine why the dealer would want or care to get involved.

[Ajedi32]

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]

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.

[dangerbird2]

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

[mikeryan]

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.

[throwawayboise]

Is that true? In my state the financing bank has a lien recorded on on the title, but they are not the owner. Maybe that is the exception?

Edit: reading some other comments ... I'm talking about the traditional financed purchase of a car, not a lease. Agree that for a leased car (which is quite common now though I've never done it), the ownership stays with the leasing entity.

[mikeryan]

No this is for financed cars.

When you live in a title-holding state, the title will be issued to the registered owner/operator of the car, regardless of lien holder. Though your lien holder will receive a separate document verifying their connection to the loan, you will be in possession of the title itself.

There are only nine title-holding states: Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, Oklahoma, Wisconsin. In the other 41 states, titles are issued to the lien holder of your vehicle until the loan is fully paid off.

From: https://www.rategenius.com/resources/titles/#:~:text=There%2....

[giobox]

It used to be quite common; at various times in its history you can make the argument Ford sold cars at a loss to help Ford Credit sell profitable car loans. Even today, Ford Credit (loans/leases etc) is responsible for about 50% of Ford's annual profits:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Credit_Company

There have been quite a few years Ford made more profit as a "bank" than they did from making and selling the cars. If you get a new Ford from a dealer and request finance/lease options, its pretty typical for Ford Credit to provide the backing.

[nomel]

Why is this comment being downvoted? It appears to be correct.

[mdoms]

Did you really not read the last sentence of the comment you responded to?

[zionic]

I agree with you, but he same is true for physical keys. A car dealership can create a working key to steal/repossess your car in much the same way.

We really need to move to strong crypto.

[Ajedi32]

In my mind there's a significant difference between a dealership using their knowledge of the car to assist with repossession, and a manufacturer demonstrating that you never really had control of your own car in the first place.

It just feels like a betrayal. Your car is loyal to the manufacturer, not to you. It will act in a manner directly opposed to your best interests as the owner if company that sold it to you orders it. I understand that's true for most software these days, but that doesn't make me any happier about it, and it really feels worse when the software in question is inextricably tied to and in control of an expensive piece of physical hardware that you purchased.

[AtlasBarfed]

As stated in other places here, if you have leased or financed your car, YOU DON'T OWN IT. You pay for the right to use it on a monthly basis.

That is why there are legal contracts. This is just automated repossession.

[sangnoir]

> That is why there are legal contracts. This is just automated repossession.

There is value in adding friction to enforcing law/contracts: I don't know if FSD-repo crosses the line for me, but I know automating enforcement is bad for society.

What if everytime Tesla cameras detect the car speeding, or has crossed double-lines, it helpfully charges the fine to the linked credit card? After all, its just automated ticketing, right?

[filoleg]

I agree with your point about automated enforcement being bad, but there is nothing automated about the situation .

A lien-holder determined that the lender wasn’t paying the bills, so they manually made a decision to repossess the car. Just like with any other brand of a car, they reached out to the dealership (in this specific case, manufacturer is the same as the dealership, because Tesla sells directly with no franchises) and requested a way to access the vehicle. Normally it is done via a key copy. In this case, they used a digital version of it. Not that it matters meaningfully at all, but the car didn’t drive across town to the repo parking lot, current summoning feature cannot do that (the distance limit for the feature is a few hundred feet iirc).

And why does it matter if it was made easier to actually repossess the vehicle? It isn’t related to the automated ticketing analogy at all. There was no automatic detection, only automated enforcement. Just like with speeding tickets, i am totally ok with the cop not wasting his and my time writing me the ticket manually or making me wait for it by email, if it instead can be automated with a digital ticket/infraction in the system that i can check out when i get home.

To be more clear on why i think it is a bad analogy. Automated ticketing is automating human decision-making, which is an ambiguous blackbox process open to interpretation. As you said, doing so leads to a lot of unintended consequences. Actually physically repoing a car (after a manual decision to repo the car was made by a human) isn’t automating decision-making. The decision has already been consciously made, and there is not much room for interpretation when it comes to the physical process of repoing a car. The only variable is if the lender decides to hide the car or do something equally dumb, so it is not a good variable to have. And remotely disabling the car based on a manual human evaluation just seems to make the process of repoing it less prone to unintended bad variables.

[josephcsible]

We want things to be "loyal" to their owners. But the key point in this story is that if you don't pay for your car, then you're not the owner of it.

[Ajedi32]

I'd have no issue with the lienholder having ultimate control of car until the loan is paid off. As I said in my initial comment, that's completely beside the point.

The problem here is that Model 3s are apparently "loyal" to their manufacturer rather than the owner, regardless of who that owner is (whether that be a lienholder, the car's "user", or anyone else that's not Tesla).

That Tesla used that misplaced loyalty to give the car back to the lienholder in this case is irrelevant to my point.

[josephcsible]

Are you okay with manufacturers helping with repossessions by cutting new physical keys for non-connected cars? If so, how is this any different?

[donio]

    Directive 4: [Classified]

[Thrymr]

If you don't own the car outright, why would an entity with a lien on the vehicle not also have access to such "strong crypto" legally? This is an issued with a secured loan, presumably in a crypto world the repossession would be allowed by "smart contract" if the borrower defaulted.

[giobox]

This is by no means limited to Tesla, and is true of almost every new car sold now.

As an example, almost every new Ford sold in the USA since 2019 has standard 5G/GPS remote connectivity; even the cheapest entry level cars at Ford like the new Maverick can remotely over 5G unlock doors and remote start the engine (just like the 'owner' can in the Ford pass app, now standard spec on virtually all Fords.). The manufacturers of course love the extra usage metrics and can also over the air sell upgrades like 5G hotspot access and so forth. Many cars now have 5G/GPS receiver for metrics even if no connectivity or nav features whatsoever exposed to user.

My point is; aside from the use of "summon", this kind of locate, remote unlock and start by manufacturer is available on almost all new cars sold today, no matter how cheap - the 5G remote access tech has become increasingly ubiquitous. This is not something unique to the way Tesla creates it cars at all, especially in 2021.

> https://www.ford.com/support/how-tos/fordpass/fordpass-remot...

[mytailorisrich]

In the UK that would be interference with goods (a tort) or taking a vehicle without the owner's consent (a criminal offense).

Still in the UK, although I suspect that holds more generally, when you buy something using a loan you own it. What you bought may be a security for the loan but that's different. Leasing a car or using a lease/purchase scheme is also different since leasing means you rent but don't own.

[oh_sigh]

Yes, you really own the vehicle, and that is why if Tesla intentionally just bricks/locks you out of your car because they feel like it, you would sue them and almost certainly win in court.

[staticassertion]

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]

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]

The legal owner and the Tesla customer don't have to be the same person.

[scoopertrooper]

Well, technically, the bank owns the car till you pay it off. So, maybe they are advocating for their customers?

[joncrocks]

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]

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.

[sys_64738]

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]

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.

[simonh]

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.

[themitigating]

If you finance a car through a bank the bank owns the car, they have the title (US).

[falcolas]

No (or rather, I have never seen this where I live in the US), they have a lien on the title. You still have the title.

Source: Trying to get a bank to remove the lien after it’s fully paid off can be a real source of frustration.

[kube-system]

You will be listed as the owner on the title but it is not uncommon for the bank to physically hold the title.

The way all of this works varies by state though. Some states issue a title electronically when the lien is released.

[zdragnar]

That varies by state. Where I live, the financing institution with the lien keeps the title until it is paid off.

Kinda nice when you trade in a car you still owe a bit of money on, as you don't really need to bring anything with you other than the key and your drivers license; the dealer does all the work getting it cleared and transferred.

[FireBeyond]

In nine states, this is not the case. The buyer has possession of the title (or electronic), and the bank has a lien on the vehicle.

[maxerickson]

My credit union has a lien on my car. The title is in my name.

I guess it's different mostly in name though, they still have strong rights to the vehicle.

[jsjohnst]

Only if it’s a lease, if you have a standard loan YOU are the titled owner and the bank is a lien holder on the title.

[KptMarchewa]

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]

Correct. I meant when the repossession order is issued.

[jemfinch]

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.

[paul_f]

The finance company becomes the owner once payments stop. Telsa is therefore helping the legal owner of the car. I don't have a problem with this.

[zo1]

It's not universal. Some places have specific regulations that govern this and so they specifically carve out a weird "ownership but non-ownership" scenario. E.g. mortgages here in South Africa. Other places yes it's in your name but you put it up as collateral on the loan itself, etc etc etc.

Bottom line, the government just makes it obscure and difficult to determine the real dynamics between the two parties, and the weird interaction it may have with existing laws governing theft/ownership.

[tiahura]

“"ownership but non-ownership" scenario. E.g. mortgages here in South Africa.”

Some states in the US also handle mortgages like this.

[ryanmercer]

You don't own the vehicle if you have a loan, the bank has the title. The title holder is the owner. The best part about paying off a financed car, to me anyway, is the day the title shows up in the mail and you actually own your car.

[kube-system]

> You don't own the vehicle if you have a loan, the bank has the title. The title holder is the owner.

No, the listed owner on the title is the owner, no matter who has possession of the title.

[jhgb]

"Loan" sounds so generic to me that what you're saying may or may not be true in different places.

[tialaramex]

I'm sure that somewhere has crazy rules but the general idea of a secured loan is the lender can easily take your security if you don't pay the debt. If not for that it isn't secured, is it?

Car loans are secured on a car. If you want to just borrow money with no security you can get a (likely far more expensive) unsecured loan if the bank judges this to be a good risk, or take an overdraft on a current account or use a credit card, all unsecured debt.

[teh_klev]

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]

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]

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.

[Dracophoenix]

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.

[staticassertion]

I agree that relying on companies to be advocates out of good will is not a good strategy.

[netcan]

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.

[Joker_vD]

> 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]

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]

> everyone by default is legally obliged to assist a law officer,

Are bailiffs law officers in that sense?