Where do I stand?

mpbaz

bris wrote: »

The item was freely given, no theft has taken place.
1968 theft act.
Appropriates”.
— (1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.

Oh let me tell you it is . it is very important point here, that the item 1.did not and does not belong to the person that now has possession of it. 2.The owner gave permission for the person now holding it to 'borrow' the said item, if it were not the case if I borrowed your car I could keep it then by your rules but you know that is NOT the case, like I said call the police they will soon tell you if he has stolen it or not.

In fact look up the theft act for yourself.

mpbaz

He stole the item when he refused/failed to return it, if I borrow your phone and dont give it back its theft you know this and so do I bris!

mpbaz

mpbaz wrote: »

He stole the item when he refused/failed to return it, if I borrow your phone and dont give it back its theft you know this and so do I bris!

In addition to that she can prove she owns that very lens so that makes it even harder for him to say anything as if you have an owner you can then very easily prove theft.

vax2002

Have a Ride to his work, face up the problem.

bazster

bris wrote: »

The item was freely given, no theft has taken place.
1968 theft act.
Appropriates”.
— (1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.

You have read that completely back-to-front. What it actually says is that assuming the rights of an owner is an appropriation even if the item was not stolen.

bazster

vax2002 wrote: »

Have a Ride to his work, face up the problem.

Trespass, harassment, blah blah blah. Exactly the sort of thing you and your cronies moan about endlessly when it comes to people checking up on TV licences.

TonyMMM

Please stop all this rubbish about reporting this as a theft. The key bit of the Theft Act 1968 which has not been mentioned is that the property must be dishonestly appropriated. In this case the lens was willingly leant to the other person.

By not returning it, he may at some point have formed a dishonest intent (if he decided to keep it for himself) which could amount to theft, but equally he could have lost it/broken it and be embarrassed to admit it.

At this stage it is a civil matter - deal with it as such.

kazwookie

Ring him
Go and see him
Stop !!!!!ing footing around, and tell your daughter the same.

DD1966

We have tried calling him and he just hangs up! I'm not travelling to where he works, its too far! I'll deal with it as a civil matter and see what happens. Maybe the letter of intent to take him to court will make him realise it's not going to go away!!!

bazster

TonyMMM wrote: »

Please stop all this rubbish about reporting this as a theft. The key bit of the Theft Act 1968 which has not been mentioned is that the property must be dishonestly appropriated. In this case the lens was willingly leant to the other person.

But Section 3(1) (as quoted above) makes it crystal clear that borrowing something, and then not returning it, is appropriation.

Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation

Couldn't be clearer, but just in case, it goes on to emphasise that it's still an appropriation even if it was originally obtained innocently.

As for whether an appropriation is dishonest, the act doesn't define dishonest, it merely defines what isn't dishonest - which definitions do not include deciding to keep something which originally was only lent.

Seems clear to me, it's theft.