Ford Files Patent for Cars to Repossess Themselves

[ANTAUS 649]

Autoblog.com

[Rick73 301]

On principle alone, would not buy a vehicle with that capability.  I’m struggling with concept that a manufacturer can unilaterally reconfigure a vehicle after purchase without owner’s consent, and that’s potentially less intrusive. 

[justins 97]

Having been in credit collections for vehicles, I can only feel sorry for those collectors who will no longer get to feel the buzz of having a car they've been chasing for months finally show up in the parking lot of a local pub and getting that call to tell you it's on the bed heading back to the repo depot. 

[fuzzymoomoo 7,988]

Yep, this seals my decision. My next new car will for sure be my last. Too much potential for intrusion. 

[T-dubz 863]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

On principle alone, would not buy a vehicle with that capability.  I’m struggling with concept that a manufacturer can unilaterally reconfigure a vehicle after purchase without owner’s consent, and that’s potentially less intrusive. 

What a PR nightmare. Alienate your customers in favor of banks.

[akirby 18,114]

43 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

What a PR nightmare. Alienate your customers in favor of banks.

 

Not banks - Ford credit.

[SoonerLS 1,755]

 

[SoonerLS 1,755]

I think my favorite part was the "if it's not worth anything, it can drive itself to the junk yard" part. I can just imagine that discussion. "Yeah, you quit paying on it, and we didn't want that POS back, but we didn't want you to have it, either, so we had it drive itself off to the junk yard and into the crusher as a final FU."

[fordmantpw 3,282]

11 hours ago, T-dubz said:

What a PR nightmare. Alienate your customers in favor of banks.

 

I have no sympathy for someone who steals.  And not making the payments on your car is theft, plain and simple.  I think this is one of the coolest things ever.  I think they should just disable it and not let it go anywhere unless you have the special "repo key" in your pocket.

[akirby 18,114]

1 hour ago, fordmantpw said:

I think they should just disable it and not let it go anywhere unless you have the special "repo key" in your pocket.

Bingo.  Disable it and report the position.

[fuzzymoomoo 7,988]

2 hours ago, fordmantpw said:

And not making the payments on your car is theft, plain and simple. 

I disagree. I’ve been in a position where I almost had a car repossessed. It wasn’t because I was deliberately not making payments, I had taken a massive pay cut and had to pick and choose which bills I paid at the moment and it snowballed from there. How is that theft? 

[Chrisgb 244]

53 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I disagree. I’ve been in a position where I almost had a car repossessed. It wasn’t because I was deliberately not making payments, I had taken a massive pay cut and had to pick and choose which bills I paid at the moment and it snowballed from there. How is that theft? 

More fraudulent than theft in the literal sense; you still have the vehicle, but you reneged on your promise to meet the agreed upon terms of the loan where the vehicle is collateral. If a person is having problems meeting debt payment regardless of how justifiable it my seem or actually be, most lenders incl Ford Motor Credit will work with borrowers to come to a satisfactory repayment plan, but it is up to the borrower to inform the lender as soon as problems arise. Unilaterally playing "musical bills" is not acceptable debt retirement. BTDT

[akirby 18,114]

2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I disagree. I’ve been in a position where I almost had a car repossessed. It wasn’t because I was deliberately not making payments, I had taken a massive pay cut and had to pick and choose which bills I paid at the moment and it snowballed from there. How is that theft? 

If you take out a loan with the car as collateral and you don’t make payments on time then you’re in default and the car can be repossessed.  How else can the lender get their money?  That’s the whole purpose of collateral.  The reason why you can’t pay is irrelevant.

 

Now the lender isn’t going to repossess it for a temporary situation if you’re up front with them and making an effort.  But at some point they have to cut their losses.

[fordmantpw 3,282]

3 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I disagree. I’ve been in a position where I almost had a car repossessed. It wasn’t because I was deliberately not making payments, I had taken a massive pay cut and had to pick and choose which bills I paid at the moment and it snowballed from there. How is that theft? 

 

Chris and akirby already said what I would have added.  A simple phone call with the lender usually works to get a new payment plan worked out.  

[Rick73 301]

3 hours ago, fordmantpw said:

 

I have no sympathy for someone who steals.  And not making the payments on your car is theft, plain and simple.  I think this is one of the coolest things ever.  I think they should just disable it and not let it go anywhere unless you have the special "repo key" in your pocket.

Does stealing also include a repo man taking a fully-paid-for car from a person’s home because of a clerical error?  As mentioned in video above, it actually happened to an uncle of mine.  Fortunately neighbors stopped him and called police.  My vehicles are also all paid for, but I’ve wondered if I caught someone trying to take one, if I would be legally justified in using lethal force to stop them?  I’m pretty certain I would be justified if at night, but not sure during the day.  Of course if I confront the repo guy, things could quickly escalate out of control anyway since I expect most are armed.  Either way, forceful repossession in my opinion goes beyond absurdity in a civilized society.  For all practical purposes, it makes it too easy to skip due process.

 

When in high school working part time, I was involved in repossessing most of the furniture from a house, but we had a court order and a deputy sheriff was present the entire time.  Afterwards, we provided a receipt for all items removed from house.

 

The Ford patent isn’t what concerns me most, largely because I doubt it is limited to Ford, or Ford Credit.  Otherwise, I would simply avoid Ford.  However, Ford could license to GM or Tesla and what would keep them from doing the same?  I expect any vehicle that can have software downloaded could be reconfigured to be repossessed in the same manner, even after the fact.  I have serious issue with a guy buying a Tesla, for example, to find out 5 years later that Tesla has upgraded software to allow repossession.  Isn’t that changing purchase contract’s terms and conditions after the deal is agreed to?

 

Also, what if car is repossessed or driver is locked out while something of immense value is in car?  I suppose that can happen today (though not as easily), but who is liable for property?  What if there is a pet or child in car when it drives away?

 

I admit being biased against forceful repossession because I see it as circumventing due process, and there’s nothing worse than injustice against the innocent.  I’m perfectly OK and support repossession if done correctly, but what is often done today is not right, and what is being proposed in this patent is even worse in my opinion by making it easier, which will lead to greater abuse.

 

 

P.S. — By the way, who actually does repossession?  If money is owed to bank, do they control vehicle?  Would a bank (Ford Credit) initiate repossession directly, or would they request Ford to activate the process?  Would there be a repo fee involved, otherwise why would Ford do it at all?  Sounds to me like the auto manufacturer becomes the repo man working for lender.  

[fuzzymoomoo 7,988]

1 hour ago, fordmantpw said:

 

Chris and akirby already said what I would have added.  A simple phone call with the lender usually works to get a new payment plan worked out.  

Yeah see I was trying that but the bank was absolutely unwilling to work with me. They were shady AF. Turned out in the end the whole structure of the loan was probably not legal. 

[fordmantpw 3,282]

2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Yeah see I was trying that but the bank was absolutely unwilling to work with me. They were shady AF. Turned out in the end the whole structure of the loan was probably not legal. 

 

See, that's a whole other situation.

[fuzzymoomoo 7,988]

30 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

 

See, that's a whole other situation.

Sure as hell doesn’t make me a thief. My point is this isn’t a black and white issue. Plenty of people get trapped in predatory loans and more often than not it takes years to figure it out and usually by then it’s too late. 

[T-dubz 863]

With ford quality and software issues as of late, you don’t have to worry, it won’t work anyways 😆

[akirby 18,114]

3 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Sure as hell doesn’t make me a thief. My point is this isn’t a black and white issue. Plenty of people get trapped in predatory loans and more often than not it takes years to figure it out and usually by then it’s too late. 

If you don’t make the payments you agreed to make that’s a loan default.  Period.  End of story.

 

Now if the loan itself is illegal then you have recourse but that has nothing to do with a legal repossession.

[akirby 18,114]

6 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Does stealing also include a repo man taking a fully-paid-for car from a person’s home because of a clerical error?  As mentioned in video above, it actually happened to an uncle of mine.  Fortunately neighbors stopped him and called police.  My vehicles are also all paid for, but I’ve wondered if I caught someone trying to take one, if I would be legally justified in using lethal force to stop them?  I’m pretty certain I would be justified if at night, but not sure during the day.  Of course if I confront the repo guy, things could quickly escalate out of control anyway since I expect most are armed.  Either way, forceful repossession in my opinion goes beyond absurdity in a civilized society.  For all practical purposes, it makes it too easy to skip due process.

 

When in high school working part time, I was involved in repossessing most of the furniture from a house, but we had a court order and a deputy sheriff was present the entire time.  Afterwards, we provided a receipt for all items removed from house.

 

The Ford patent isn’t what concerns me most, largely because I doubt it is limited to Ford, or Ford Credit.  Otherwise, I would simply avoid Ford.  However, Ford could license to GM or Tesla and what would keep them from doing the same?  I expect any vehicle that can have software downloaded could be reconfigured to be repossessed in the same manner, even after the fact.  I have serious issue with a guy buying a Tesla, for example, to find out 5 years later that Tesla has upgraded software to allow repossession.  Isn’t that changing purchase contract’s terms and conditions after the deal is agreed to?

 

Also, what if car is repossessed or driver is locked out while something of immense value is in car?  I suppose that can happen today (though not as easily), but who is liable for property?  What if there is a pet or child in car when it drives away?

 

I admit being biased against forceful repossession because I see it as circumventing due process, and there’s nothing worse than injustice against the innocent.  I’m perfectly OK and support repossession if done correctly, but what is often done today is not right, and what is being proposed in this patent is even worse in my opinion by making it easier, which will lead to greater abuse.

 

 

P.S. — By the way, who actually does repossession?  If money is owed to bank, do they control vehicle?  Would a bank (Ford Credit) initiate repossession directly, or would they request Ford to activate the process?  Would there be a repo fee involved, otherwise why would Ford do it at all?  Sounds to me like the auto manufacturer becomes the repo man working for lender.  

 

Overreact much?  I’m sure this would mostly be Ford repossessing Ford credit vehicles.   In most cases it would just assist the repo person to find it and from there it’s a normal repo.

 

As far as software, you don’t have a right to the software.  You only have a right to use just like every other app or piece of software.  The licensor retains the right to modify it.  Now if you paid for a feature that was removed then you might have a case but adding new features like this are perfectly legal.

[Rick73 301]

34 minutes ago, akirby said:

Overreact much?

Only when it comes to Big Brother mentality.

[fuzzymoomoo 7,988]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

If you don’t make the payments you agreed to make that’s a loan default.  Period.  End of story.

 

Now if the loan itself is illegal then you have recourse but that has nothing to do with a legal repossession.

I’m not saying it isn’t default. I’m saying it’s not theft. The two are not the same thing. 

[wildosvt 182]

People are losing their shit over a patent. 

[Captainp4 229]

40 minutes ago, wildosvt said:

People are losing their shit over a patent. 

The ones spending beyond their means