Can l be arrested for this?

mrbrightside842

Oh just sell the stuff, if he's gone off abroad without telling you when he expects to be back, I can't imagine you're supposed to keep hold of his stuff incase he does come back. Sell it, and if he comes back tell him you binned it all as you did not expect his return due to his lack of correspondence.

Kohoutek

mrbrightside842 wrote: »

Oh just sell the stuff, if he's gone off abroad without telling you when he expects to be back, I can't imagine you're supposed to keep hold of his stuff incase he does come back. Sell it, and if he comes back tell him you binned it all as you did not expect his return due to his lack of correspondence.

You should put a disclaimer on your post that you have no idea what you're talking about and that following your advice may lead to criminal charges being brought against you :eek:

cjmumto2

How is the ex even going to prove that he lived there? I would sell if I couldnt not contact him after a certain amount of time. He is also liable for child maintenance which he clearly isnt paying. He has upped and left his epileptic child, and the courts here to tend to side on the side of the mother and child. So the mother needs money to pay for the child, I would also sell his things

jamie11

I add to may-fair's advice (and G-M).

If this guy has just gone away for a while and comes back then being charged with theft is going to be the least of your worries. You would be opening yourself up to being charged with illegal eviction, not just yourself either but the landlord as well. The penalties are massive. What's more it would be your local council carrying out the prosecution.

Best thing. Don't do it. Use the proper procedures to bring the tenancy to an end. Claim your money through the court. Get the bailiff to flog his stuff. That way you can get in no trouble.

may_fair

cjmumto2 wrote: »

How is the ex even going to prove that he lived there?

Bills/bank statements addressed to him. Witnesses. Payments made to LL.

antrobus

daisymay2008 wrote: »

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

Sorry you're wrong. The whole point of Taking and Driving Away is that you don't have to show an intent to permanently deprive in order to be convicted. Or as it is now known, Taking a Conveyance without Authority, although it's still s12 Theft Act 1968;

a person shall be guilty of an offence if, without having the consent of the owner or other lawful authority, he takes any conveyance for his own or another’s use or, knowing that any conveyance has been taken without such authority, drives it or allows himself to be carried in or on it.

You don't have your brother's consent to take the car, and you have no lawful authority to take the car, thus you will be convicted and could get as much as six months for it.

antrobus

daisymay2008 wrote: »

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)

And I would cite the case of R v Ghosh which you have previously referred to.

The case of R v Ghosh concerned a surgeon employed by the NHS who claimed payment in respect of operations which he had not in fact carried out, but sought to justify his actions on the grounds that he was owed similar amounts in respect of consultancy fees. Ghosh was convicted of theft, but appealed his conviction. Now it is perfectly true that the Court of Appeal had some interesting things to say about the legal nature of dishonesty when considering his appeal (interesting that is if you happen to be studying criminal law and are going to answer an exam question about this sort of thing), but the important point to note is that the conviction was upheld.

antrobus

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Why do people get so angry and start turning the thread into a slanging match?

We are supposed to be helping the OP.

It is no surprise when so many posters 'disappear', no doubt because they get fed up with the 'off topic' comments

Please let's try to keep things polite and to the point.

Well that's pretty much standard practice for MSE. But anyway let's try this:-

Can l be arrested for this?

Yes you can.

Will l be arrested for this?

Who knows? Depends on what attitude your ex-partner takes when and if they return and find that their furniture has disappeared, and whether or not local plod has any interest in pursuing the matter.

What should I do if I'm actually charged with theft?

Well you could try the 'I honestly believed that I had the right to take the goods and sell them' line, but I wouldn't bet on it working.


What other kind of trouble could I find myself in?

Well your ex-partner could sue you for the cost of the furniture that you've taken and sold. You could counter sue for the rent you claim is owed. But since it's unclear whether you have any legal basis to have charged rent in the first place, you might well find yourself seriously out of pocket.

Yorkie1

And to add to antrobus' post, if the nature of the defence is that the OP believed in law that they had the right to take the property, that's rightly a question to be left for the jury, not to be second guessed by the prosecution.

Yorkie1

daisymay2008 wrote: »

another prime example of your arrogance and presumptious nature thinking you are above everyone else, i'll take a wild guess your a lawyer probably CPS one at that

None of us know what you do, and of course you are entitled not to reveal what you do.

But from the tone of that accusation, I'm guessing you're not a lawyer.