Can l be arrested for this?

brit1234

daisymay2008 wrote: »

So it's dishonest because some posters on here have said so??

Its dishonest because the original poster suspects it to be be dishonest enough to create a thread which asks if he will get arrested if he carries out the actions.

Other posters say it is illegal in response to his question.

To summarise he think it might be wrong, asks for help to find out it is wrong, gets told by strangers it is wrong

daisymay2008 wrote: »

Could you please quote the part of the Theft act that you are talking about where it says this act would be dishonest?

To be honest I'm getting a bit board now, I have provided the law that states the OP would have a CLEAR defence to this being Theft as they are owed money.....

A defence which will get ripped up in interview. I could launch about 30-40 quick fired questions which would have the suspect so tired up, he would admit he knew it was dishonest or the CPS would say charge.

There are legal ways to obtain the money back

daisymay2008 wrote: »

you have sounded off about how it is a crime of Theft but cannot back it up with any proof from any part of the Theft act....

Lets leave it to the OP decide what they want to do

You can quote selected parts of the theft act all you like, it doesn't make you right. All the points to prove for theft are there. You are trying to hold up a defence to one part which does not hold water and would get ripped apart.

G_M

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

OP: to protect yourself you could have your cousin, the ex-partner's landlord, instruct you IN WRITING to dispose of the ex's furniture. That way, you would purely be acting as your cousin's agent in their absence. Any possible come-back in the future would be your cousin's responsibility and not yours.

Sorry bitter - your posts on this thread are not up to your usual standard, and this one takes the biscuit!

So I rob a bank. Then I get my cousin to write a letter instructing me to rob the bank. Oh good, I'm in the clear - it's clearly my cousin's problem as I'm just his agent!

daisymay2008

Kohoutek wrote: »

Theft Act 1968, s. 2

In my opinion a) clearly does apply, as already stated if the Jury believes the OP didn't act dishonestly then they would acquit the OP of Theft.

It is exactly the same if for example my brother owes me £5000 and doesn't pay me back, I can take his vehicle (worth £5000) and this would not be classed as theft, I could well get arrested but more than likely would not get charged as I would have a defence that I acted in the honest held belief that I had a right to that money

antrobus

clutton wrote: »

""or "distress is not available against residential tenants without the court’s leave"

we are now talking about an EX tenant - very different rules apply - a LL has a duty to store furniture left behind for a month, they have to contact the ex tenant to see if they are going to collect them and if no response then the LL can dispose of them as they see fit......

Well that's a more sensible argument. If it was the case that the tenant had abandoned the tenancy leaving behind their property, then the landlord would become an 'involuntary bailee' of the goods in question. (I think that's the right terminology.) But I don't believe that this gives a landlord the automatic right to sell the goods in question. Apparently the thing to do in such circumstances is get a court order permitting sale.

There is a longish post here -
http://www.lettingaproperty.com/forum/tenant-leaves-belongings - that seems to be a sensible outline of the law on the subject.

brit1234

Stella66 wrote: »

Thank you all for your input in this. It has all made so much sense, sometimes when you are so emotionally consumed you need fresh opinions based on the facts presented.
I have made my decision, l guess l will have to face the judge or jury or whoever because the items will be listed on Ebay and Gumtree today.

There are legal ways to reclaim the money. The responsible way would be to take the items off ebay and gumtree (well known for selling stolen items) and follow the legal methods.

daisymay2008 wrote: »

Good on you, I would have done exactly the same in your situation, please come back on and let me know if you get arrested and/or charged with Theft as I'm sure you won't even if the ex reports you, if you do get arrested ask for a lawyer and they will know all about the defences I have raised previously

I guess that the difference between you and me. You look for ways to break the law and encourage it, I enforce the law.

Hardly the type of advise we need on this forum.

antrobus

daisymay2008 wrote: »

In my opinion a) clearly does apply, as already stated if the Jury believes the OP didn't act dishonestly then they would acquit the OP of Theft.

It is exactly the same if for example my brother owes me £5000 and doesn't pay me back, I can take his vehicle (worth £5000) and this would not be classed as theft, I could well get arrested but more than likely would not get charged as I would have a defence that I acted in the honest held belief that I had a right to that money

You'd still be charged and convicted for taking a vehicle without consent. That's s12 Theft Act 1968. Or was at least. It's taking and driving away these days.

daisymay2008

brit1234 wrote: »

All the points to prove for theft are there. You are trying to hold up a defence to one part which does not hold water and would get ripped apart.

No they arn't

A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

1) OP has appropriated property belonging to another (their ex)
2) OP does so with the intention of permanently depriving the ex of it
3) However in my opinion they have not done so dishonestly as they believe they have a right to the property due to monies owed (that is the defence, so all elements of the offence arn't made out)

daisymay2008

antrobus wrote: »

You'd still be charged and convicted for taking a vehicle without consent. That's s12 Theft Act 1968. Or was at least. It's taking and driving away these days.

No I wouldn't as if there is no Theft then the offence of TWOC would not be made out

daisymay2008

brit1234 wrote: »

I guess that the difference between you and me. You look for ways to break the law and encourage it, I enforce the law.

Hardly the type of advise we need on this forum.

I also enforce the law thanks and have done for many years

Kohoutek

daisymay2008 wrote: »

In my opinion a) clearly does apply, as already stated if the Jury believes the OP didn't act dishonestly then they would acquit the OP of Theft.

It is exactly the same if for example my brother owes me £5000 and doesn't pay me back, I can take his vehicle (worth £5000) and this would not be classed as theft, I could well get arrested but more than likely would not get charged as I would have a defence that I acted in the honest held belief that I had a right to that money

Most people know that it isn't legal to enforce a debt by taking someone's property without a court order. Since the OP seems to know this, you seem to be suggesting that she (1) lie in a police interview when this is put to her (2) lie to court when this is put to her.

The best advice would be not to commit a criminal offence and recover the money legally.