Can l be arrested for this?

hollydays

But is it reasonable, to come to the conclusion he is not going to pay.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME.What difference would,say,another three weeks make to the OP?

chewmylegoff

brit1234 wrote: »

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.

no you couldn't, because he would just say "no comment" to all of your questions.

antrobus

daisymay2008 wrote: »

And no I wouldn't because if you actually read what I said, I would have no intention of returning the vehicle, my intention would be to keep the vehicle in lieu of monies owed....If I was going to get charged with anything it wouldbe theft of motor vehicle not TWOC!

Mmmm. You don't really understand how the criminal justice system works do you?

If you take someone's car, and are charged with theft then a jury remains "able to bring an alternative verdict convicting an offender of Taking without owners consent as an alternative to a count alleging theft of the conveyance". My point therefore is that even if your defence worked, you'd still end up getting convicted of "Taking a Conveyance without Authority, contrary to section 12 of the 1968 Act" and run the risk of getting banged up for six months.

None of which, of course is of any particular relevance to the original question, but then it's much harder to argue that didn't actually mean to permanently deprive someone of their furniture.

daisymay2008 wrote: »

If A owes B £100, B is entitled to take property belonging to A to the value of £100 and would have a defence that he did so because he honestly believed he was owed the money

Oh that's wrong on so many levels.

a) B has no such legal entitlement
b) Whether or not he honestly believed he was owed the money is not a defence to a charge of theft

daisymay2008 wrote: »

and the point is my defence would be I HAVE NOT acted dishonestly because I believe I have a right to the car due to monies owed

Well that's exactly the argument that Deb Baran Ghosh made in the case of R v Ghosh. He thought he could steal some money from the NHS to make up for the fact that they owed him some money. It didn't work for him, so why are you so convinced it would work for you?

The real point is that you fundamentally do not understand the law or the nature of the defence you are advocating.

To quote the words of the Lord Chief Justice in R v Ghosh;

It is no defence for a man to say "I knew that what I was doing is generally regarded as dishonest; but I do not regard it as dishonest myself. Therefore I am not guilty". (See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1982/2.html)

So what you think doesn't matter. It's what the rest of us think that matters.

suited-aces

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no you couldn't, because he would just say "no comment" to all of your questions.

which would speak volumes

antrobus

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I think this is the only correct post on this thread.

Irrespective of whether a tenancy was created or not, everyone has a common law 'right of set off' so absolutely yes the OP can sell items left behind to pay for monies owed to them. Any talk of the theft act etc is completely missing the point I think.

You're confusing criminal and civil law.

If the OP sold goods belonging to X in order to satisfy a debt, and X sued the OP under the tort of conversion for the value of the goods appropriated, then OP could well counterclaim on the basis of an equitable right of set off for the debt owed by X.

However none of this would change the fact that the OP stole the goods in the first place and was therefore guilty of theft.

The "common law 'right of set off'" is a right that you exercise in court, it doesn't give you the right to go around seizing people's property just because they owe you money.

antrobus

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no you couldn't, because he would just say "no comment" to all of your questions.

And nothing speaks of guilt more than 'no commenting' your way through a police interview.

P.S. Which is what he said as well.

suited-aces wrote: »

which would speak volumes

regprentice

Interesting thread.

Most issues like this (involving family/exes etc) tend to blow up quickly and then disappear quickly. Ive seen a number of queries like this where the eventual outcome was 'nothing happened'.

There are a few issues for the OP to consider here without worrying too much about how the courts will interpret things at this stage.

Does the owner of the home knows a rent was being charged (Doesnt sound like it, sounds like the op 'decided' that a nominal rent should be charged to be fair. if so how will the owner react? - does the owner have landlords insurance? is the owner registered with the local authority as a landlord? The owner, for whom the OP appears to be acting as an agent, could be in hot water)

The tenant owes child support? As a student he will not have had to pay, as a resident abroad (if he does not come back) he will not have to pay. The only circumstance under which he will have to pay is if he comes back to the residence. Perhaps evicting him and seizing his furniture is cutting off your nose to spite your face? Certainly wont go down well with the CSA.

What will happen when he returns home to find the property empty? I suspect he will call the police. In this instance any sensible experienced copper will view the situation as a domestic and ask the OP to return the furniture. Once the police and the teants insurers are involved the situation will be out of the OP's control - while the Police might let things go quietly I doubt the tenants insurers will.

All of the legal crap which has been spouted on this thread requires the OP to proactively mount a civil action against the tenant. For the tenant all they need to do is call the police and the OP will be subject to a CRIMINAL action with no further cost to the tenant.

The amount of possile damadge that could be done to 4 peoples lives out of the OP's malicious act will ironically impact her, her child and the owner of the property more than the tenant. I suspect the OP's best course of action is to sit quietly on their hands and think carefully about what they intend to do before she takes the pin out of the grenade.

Hanky_Panky

antrobus wrote: »

You're confusing criminal and civil law.

If the OP sold goods belonging to X in order to satisfy a debt, and X sued the OP under the tort of conversion for the value of the goods appropriated, then OP could well counterclaim on the basis of an equitable right of set off for the debt owed by X.

However none of this would change the fact that the OP stole the goods in the first place and was therefore guilty of theft.

The "common law 'right of set off'" is a right that you exercise in court, it doesn't give you the right to go around seizing people's property just because they owe you money.

I'm not confusing anything - I have applied the right to set off probably hundreds of times in my past without any prior legal action. Banks do it all the time - e.g. person owes £300 on their credit card but have the same amount of money sitting in a savings account. Bank whips money out of savings account to clear credit card. Are you seriously suggesting that
a) They have 'stolen' the money from the savings account and
b) The bank should go through a legal process before applying the right to set off.

G51shopaholic

It is NOT theft - the person clearly abandoned the property and their belongings when he walked out the door!

Seanymph

He didn't tell his landlord he was abandoning the property.

He told the mother of his child he was off to meet a woman off the internet. Not exactly the same thing really is it?