Can I claim abandoned car...?

sebdangerfield

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Wrong. I think you are still thinking of the old offence of Taking and Driving Away. T.W.O.C. superceded this and it means the vehicle only needs to be taken, which of course includes being driven as a means of taking.

To all intents and puposes this offence has been commited. Harvey needs to cover his own back now. Unless he has recently checked, the vehicle may have now been reported stolen. The reason it was appparently abandoned in the first place is not known. Someone may have been periodically checking it was where it had been left and has now reported it lost/stolen.

I would be inclined to report to the police, probably in writing what I had done. I would make it clear that I had previously reported the abandoned vehicle to them and the L.A. I would point out that neither of these authorities had taken any action in respect of removing the vehicle. I would inform that as a safety precaution I had removed it to my land for safe keeping.

This may or may not help Harvey obtain a free vehicle but it could save him a lot of grief down the line.

In the event of an owner turning up he could charge them a removal and storage fee. If he did the owner might post on the Parking thread about him. :rotfl:

On the other hand Harvey could just stay stum and take his chances.

Amendment.

Re-read the thread. I was under the impression Harvey had already removed the vehicle. Not sure now that he has done that yet. If not then my points above ought to be considered before such action is taken.

Hmmm, I'm interested to know the differences you state between TWOC (Taking a conveyance without consent) and TADA (Taking and driving away) as in my law firm both are well and truly considered to be different acronyms for the same offence, namely section 12 of the theft act and have been since 1968. Link here for you;

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/TWOC

The problem I find with your answer is s12 of the theft act has never allowed the conveyance to be just taken as you point out above, it needs to be used as a conveyance at the time. Simply, pushing or towing the car away would not amount to the crime whereby if the OP were being conveyed in it at the time by simply sitting in the vehicle, it would. Like I said here;

Not TWOC if harvey tows it or pushes it though, once the other reasonable lines of enquiries are exhausted then theft is also negated.

The other reason the offence of TWOC would not be commited by Harvey is the obvious one, he's already developed the required mens rea (crimminal intent) for the offence of theft. i.e, permanently depriving the rightfull owner of it. He's already said he wants to keep it!

To put it in as short a post as I can, theft required the mens rea to take the item in question disshonestly. Harvey can prove there was no disshonsty if he takes all reasonble steps to find the righfull owner. It also requires the intent to perminantly deprive the owner of it. Obviously, this is what Harvey want's to do but as there is no disshonesty then there can be no theft.

The other offence of s12 of the theft act or twoc was developed for matters when, by the very nature of motor vehicles, it's very difficult to prove an intention to perminently deprive. For example; I could take your car whilst you're not looking and drive it 600 miles away before leaving it there. I've taken it, i've caused you mayhem, but I've intended to perminently deprive you of it so it's also not theft. Thats why twoc was developed.

Hope that clears it up.

fergies_army

I agree with sebdangerfield .... ..s.1 theft is more relevant than s.12 tada, twoc, utmv depending where you live due to the intention to permenantly deprive the owner of the said property.

However if the op was to go ahead with their plan and the police were involved criminally then there is sufficient suspicion that an offence has been committed and that the op is suspected of that offence which could result in arrest, as its theft related 99% certain a search of the op's property would be carried out for material relating to the offence, whilst in custody they would have their fingerprints, DNA and photo taken, the offence is also a trigger offence for a drugs test.
During interview the op would demonstrate that their was no dishonest element and deny the offence. More than likely the CPS would drop the matter then however they may decide its for a magistrate to decide on this point?

I agree with sebdangerfield and would imagine the op would get away with this matter however they have to be mindful they would still risk being arrested and everything that comes with it along the way.

fluffnutter

It's probably not the main point to make in this thread which seems to be about whether the OP can claim the car or not but... I'd be really annoyed if this was happening outside my house.

Abandoned vehicles make an area look like no one cares about the local community. If people think no one cares, then they stop caring as a consequence. Before long the whole area will look really run down and low-level crime such as anti-social behaviour will increase.

I'd be really cross with the LA for not sorting this out sooner.

sebdangerfield

fergies_army wrote: »

I agree with sebdangerfield .... ..s.1 theft is more relevant than s.12 tada, twoc, utmv depending where you live due to the intention to permenantly deprive the owner of the said property.

However if the op was to go ahead with their plan and the police were involved criminally then there is sufficient suspicion that an offence has been committed and that the op is suspected of that offence which could result in arrest, as its theft related 99% certain a search of the op's property would be carried out for material relating to the offence, whilst in custody they would have their fingerprints, DNA and photo taken, the offence is also a trigger offence for a drugs test.
During interview the op would demonstrate that their was no dishonest element and deny the offence. More than likely the CPS would drop the matter then however they may decide its for a magistrate to decide on this point?

I agree with sebdangerfield and would imagine the op would get away with this matter however they have to be mindful they would still risk being arrested and everything that comes with it along the way.

Yup, I agree. I'd imagine that's exactly the way it'd go.

I stand by my original post though, I can understand the la or Police not getting involved when the car was still in tax or recently expired as niether really have the power to lift a car in those circumstances. Now though, it's far out of tax and insurance and both la and police have powers to lift it unde the Police reform act (I think of the top of my head) to lift it. Generally though, Police will contact DVLA and will lift untaxed/insured cars under a scheme called viper. May be worth trying again now?

DirectDebacle

sebdangerfield wrote: »

Hmmm, I'm interested to know the differences you state between TWOC (Taking a conveyance without consent) and TADA (Taking and driving away) as in my law firm both are well and truly considered to be different acronyms for the same offence, namely section 12 of the theft act and have been since 1968. Link here for you;Hope that clears it up.

Thank you for your comprehensive reply and I take your points. My post was not intended to start a legal debate but to point out that there is a fine line being trodden here between what is legal and what is not. I was suggesting action that Harvey could take which might avoid the CPS wondering whether to charge with theft or TWOC, ever arising in the first place.

Having weighed up all the options it might be a good idea to find an easier way of making money. Depends on the balance of weighing the antcipated profit against the risks/effort from continuing the plan.

anewman

alcot33uk wrote: »

gang of Asian 'yooves' in 'Lahndahn' going to the long stay car parks in Heathrow and picking out the dustiest cars, then doing as some have suggested? They were caught when the car park people started seeing them every day!

Illegal to walk around a car park these days? Wouldn't they have to pay for the parking too?

vaio

fluffnutter wrote: »

......Abandoned vehicles make an area look like no one cares about the local community. If people think no one cares, then they stop caring as a consequence. Before long the whole area will look really run down and low-level crime such as anti-social behaviour will increase........

and before you know it you'll have second hand car dealers moving into the area :eek: :eek:

GSXRCarlos

in my case the police threatened me with TWOC, they couldn't persue me for theft because i rang the council, and the poilce who both had it all on record and had the new v5 in hand

harveybobbles

fluffnutter wrote: »

Abandoned vehicles make an area look like no one cares about the local community. If people think no one cares, then they stop caring as a consequence. Before long the whole area will look really run down and low-level crime such as anti-social behaviour will increase.

I'd be really cross with the LA for not sorting this out sooner.

As the trees and shrubs are now growing, the LA cant get near to keep them looking neat and tidy as this car is stuffed half into the hedge.

Blackpool_Saver

You are not going to believe this but i am in the same position, there has been an abandoned car just to the side of my corner house since November, police have been to the door asking me about it, and I have rang, but it's still there