Issues with SF-97

[PHasty]

Still didn't get any news, curious about this weeks numbers.

DCIV-Putting them together now...did you ever PM me your item number?

 

[Sparo2]

Can you check the status for mine please.

Item 887349 Sold on 5-9-17

 

[PHasty]

Well since I am apparently encouraging lawlessness and anarchy, going forward my posts will be limited to facts only. My personal opinion and advice is clearly not needed or wanted since there are enough lawyers and experts on the forum to provide sufficient avenues for everyone. With that said here are this week's EUC numbers:

7/11 and later: 11
7/18: 48
7/25: 88
8/1: 64

TSC approved 119 this week.

 

[DCIV]

DCIV-Putting them together now...did you ever PM me your item number?

No as I was trying to wait like I should be doing. But PM sent

Can you check the status for mine please.

Item 887349 Sold on 5-9-17

Oh snap, your a month behind me!

 

[StainlessSteel]

This problem will bring some pretty big problems for people in many states.

Lets look at the potential problems this is causing in NC. You can find the total list of all applicable laws here: https://connect.ncdot.gov/business/dmv/dmv documents/nc title manual.pdf

and here: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0020

First, it is of questionable legality to transfer ownership of a vehicle without a valid title, CoO or SF-97 to give to the person at the time of sale. NC law requires that it be provided at time of sale:


So it looks like the SOP even when thing are running "smooth" is likely not legal in NC

But the buyers are being pushed into violating the law because of the paperwork shortage:


It is literally a crime you can be convicted of to not get a title within 28 days.

This mess is actually putting buyers in a position of committing a crime, a relatively minor one but still a crime that goes on a criminal record, because they are not being provided the documents legally required to be provided them. And the state doesn't care one bit that the feds are not giving you paperwork or that they require you to sell items at a certain speed, so by offering for sale and delivering vehicles in NC without any idea when you will be able to provide the proper paperwork you are screwing customers.

And you can't just say the sale date was later:



Because that is a crime. In fact if you are dating SF-97's at date of signature that is likely not legal for sales in NC.... and if your telling buyers in NC to use this date as the date of sale you are probably telling them to commit a class 3 misdemeanor.

Its a very convoluted mess- by state law in NC until you have the title, CoO or SF-97 transferred to you you are not the legal owner of a motor vehicle. So essentially by selling vehicles, taking money and transferring possession without providing the paperwork legally required by the state to be provided for any vehicle sold in the state they are making a huge legal mess. if its GP's stance that ownership is transferred on delivery they are failing to comply with NC law and not providing the legally required documents. If they follow what NC law says then even after your truck is paid for and taken home your not the legal owner and can't do anything with it...

Of course if this mess makes the NC DMV inspectors start really looking hard at GP they may start asking why they are not a licensed auto dealer.

Looking at this post a second time, there clearly would be a better way to handle the "sale", which would be to put the money that is to go toward the vehicle into an escrow account to be released when the vehicle and documents necessary for titling/registering are delivered to the buyer.
Then, it would seem,
1) buyer is not in possession illegally.
2) seller has not "sold" illegally.
3) state can't have issue with an unregistered, untitled vehicle being in state.
4) clock on titling/registering would not start ticking until vehicle was delivered.

Doesn't solve the problem of a huge delay in receiving what you have purchased, but with a disclaimer to people that they might be waiting a year or more for their purchase, at least they would know the risk prior to purchasing.

**Not an attorney, so none of this should be construed as legal advice. Just applying common sense.


1985 HMMWV M998

 

[Chief_919]

Looking at this post a second time, there clearly would be a better way to handle the "sale", which would be to put the money that is to go toward the vehicle into an escrow account to be released when the vehicle and documents necessary for titling/registering are delivered to the buyer.
Then, it would seem,
1) buyer is not in possession illegally.
2) seller has not "sold" illegally.
3) state can't have issue with an unregistered, untitled vehicle being in state.
4) clock on titling/registering would not start ticking until vehicle was delivered.

Doesn't solve the problem of a huge delay in receiving what you have purchased, but with a disclaimer to people that they might be waiting a year or more for their purchase, at least they would know the risk prior to purchasing.

**Not an attorney, so none of this should be construed as legal advice. Just applying common sense.


1985 HMMWV M998

Part of the problem is they are doing this in 50 different states and some territories, and every one has their own unique laws and procedures. And they are using one set of standard procedures for everyone.

Its nothing unique to GP, this was an issue with legality back in the GL days too in NC and I have posted about it before. The policies they used were not legal under NC law and I suspect they got by just because nobody in DMV enforcement noticed- the License and Theft Bureau only has about 150 agents for the whole state so lots of things go a long time until they get their attention. If some DMV enforcement agent decided they wanted to make a big deal of it they could possibly come after GP for not being a licensed auto dealer in NC, depending on just how the contract is done with DLA and if title to the vehicles is ever technically GP's before they transfer it. Or possibly other violations..... I figure its just a matter of time until a DMV Enforcement agent gets wind of what happening when they get called to do a VIN verification and starts digging deeper into it. When a buyer tells them they took possession of a truck months prior but didn't call for a VIN verification until now because the SF-97 was late and then they see a recent date on the SF-97 they may see a violation based on the law I quoted above.

 

[StainlessSteel]

Although inconvenient for states that are more flexible, SOP need to be geared state by state or designed to fit the "lowest common denominator".


1985 HMMWV M998

 

[AMC]

Just a thought that could be off base, on dates of sales. If you bought a HMMWV or any other EUC item, the sale isn't final until the EUC is approved. Once its approved that's when our sales are considered approved and final.

 

[Bocephus]

SF97 wait times people are talking about is after the EUC is approved.

 

[Chief_919]

Just a thought that could be off base, on dates of sales. If you bought a HMMWV or any other EUC item, the sale isn't final until the EUC is approved. Once its approved that's when our sales are considered approved and final.

Doesn't change things.

NC law is that you must title a vehicle within 28 days of purchase/delivery. It takes far longer than that to get an SF-97.

NC law also makes it a crime to misrepresent the date of purchase in order to avoid the above crime, so if the SF-97 is dated later than the actual purchase and you use that as the date of purchase that is also a crime.

Most people are just using the SF-97 date and nobody questions it, but it is misrepresenting the truth to the DMV and that is a crime- but the way things are done buyers in NC are already violating the law by not titling the vehicle within 28 days of taking delivery of it, so they have the option of telling the DMV the truth and taking the lumps from the state or committing a second crime by misrepresenting the SF-97 date as the date of purchase- as GP advises them to based on posts in this thread.

Of course NC law also says a seller must furnish signed title documents- be it a title, CoO or SF-97, at the time of delivery and doesn't allow for a vehicle to be sold and title documents be delivered at some unknown future date. So the law assumes sellers follow the law at this point when it sets the time limits for titling and because GP doesn't meet that legal requirement it sets the buyers up for failure later. There is no legal provision or method to buy a vehicle and have titling documents delivered willy-nilly at whatever future date under state law here.....

 

[DCIV]

Got approved! Thank you PHasty.

 

[jcappeljr]

I call Govplanet today,I am waiting on 4 sf97s.They said they have no idea of when they will have the forms.This really pisses me off.They need to do something soon.

 

[matic4433]

Well since I am apparently encouraging lawlessness and anarchy, going forward my posts will be limited to facts only. My personal opinion and advice is clearly not needed or wanted since there are enough lawyers and experts on the forum to provide sufficient avenues for everyone. With that said here are this week's EUC numbers:
7/11 and later: 11
7/18: 48
7/25: 88
8/1: 64

TSC approved 119 this week.

Hello, Phasty. Long time listener, first time caller. Love your thread. Just wondering what the numbers you post mean. Are the numbers next to the dates the total number of EUCs that were submitted that day? If so, why do they change from week to week? Is that because some get approved quicker, e.g., someone who already had an approval on file? Just curious. Now for the real question, if my EUC was submitted 8/15 I am likely looking at 2 to 3 weeks for an approval, correct?

Thanks for the updates.

 

[98G]

I got an email today to the same effect. "We don't have any, we don't know when we'll get any. Your patience is appreciated etc".

I'd like to see that information included in the blurb on every auction, like the Hold Harmless Agreement is...

 

[PHasty]

Hello, Phasty. Long time listener, first time caller. Love your thread. Just wondering what the numbers you post mean. Are the numbers next to the dates the total number of EUCs that were submitted that day? If so, why do they change from week to week? Is that because some get approved quicker, e.g., someone who already had an approval on file? Just curious. Now for the real question, if my EUC was submitted 8/15 I am likely looking at 2 to 3 weeks for an approval, correct?

Thanks for the updates.

Matic- You are correct in your assumption. My EUC team submits EUCs in batches once a week. The date I reference is the date the "batch" is sent to TSC. TSC tends to work them in batch order, however there are 3 different "types" of EUC Buyer status'. Initial Buyer (First Timers), Subsequent (EUC approved within last 30 months), and Interim (EUC Approved over 30 months). Subsequent buyers are automatically approved, provided that NOTHING has changed on their EUC submission (Address, Company Name, Phone Number, End Use, etc), 7 days after being accepted by TSC. Normally by the time I post the dates those EUCs have already been subtracted from the batch number. Interim buyers typically get approved 2-3 weeks faster than Initial Buyers, so yes that is one of the reasons the numbers fluctuate. The other reason is that depending on which investigator is working, how many were in a batch, and how they distributed the files, one investigator may be working two or three different batches. That is why I put how many were approved in a week and then 2 or 3 weeks worth of batch numbers so that everyone can get a pretty good SWAG on when they can expect to see an approval. It is not perfect, but at least it provides a little clarity on how things are going versus the blackhole of information that was being given out.

Hope that helps explain it a little better!

 

[Chief_919]

Well since I am apparently encouraging lawlessness and anarchy, going forward my posts will be limited to facts only. My personal opinion and advice is clearly not needed or wanted since there are enough lawyers and experts on the forum to provide sufficient avenues for everyone.

Sorry you took my response to you in the other thread and viewed it like this.

The advice you were giving was contrary to what is legal in the state of NC, and had people followed it they would be unknowingly committing a crime. I don't expect you or anyone to be familiar with the laws in all 50 states, but I would hope you don't get bent out of shape at someone just trying to protect people in a state from following advice that would not be legal in that state.

It is no different than people speaking up here when they see people giving advice on a towing setup or repair that could be dangerous- if you know a course of action being recommended is unsafe or illegal then you, I or anyone else here should speak up.

I have been corrected on bad advice here too. I would rather that than bad advice I gave be followed and cause people problems, and I hope you would too.

 

[ArizonaGasMonkey]

Thanks Mr. Hasty. I received notice of 5 SF97's on the way. Now all I need is the USMC to release my 1045A2 and all will be good. Thank you again for working with all of us on these matters. AM

 

[Jnicks805]

Thanks Mr. Hasty. I received notice of 5 SF97's on the way. Now all I need is the USMC to release my 1045A2 and all will be good. Thank you again for working with all of us on these matters. AM

Wait a second, Does that mean you guys have them now?

 

[StainlessSteel]

Wait a second, Does that mean you guys have them now?

I'm confused, too. Last I heard there was no end in sight to the backorder.


1985 HMMWV M998

 

[hpu4]

Any updates? GP still in a holding pattern?