Where do I stand?

wealdroam

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!

Looks like your knowledge of the theft act is as good as that of the sale of goods act.

DD1966

Hi all,
I asked the police about the lens and they replied with a link to the following, hope it clarifies things, it sure does for me and i now know which route to go down!


The refusal of B to give something borrowed from C back to C is not automatically theft. In some cases it might have to be resolved using the Civil Courts and you may need to see a solicitor for advice.

Example:

B borrows C's power drill. B keeps promising to return it, he does not intend to keep it and it is just left in the garage, but he doesn't get round to giving it back. If this is pure forgetfulness, which goes on for a fairly long period (despite reminders) it would not be theft. However, eventually there comes a point where C has been deprived of his property for so long that B has no excuse for not returning it (perhaps a year or more) and the Criminal Courts would consider he had stolen the drill.

If you have a problem with someone who has borrowed your property, keep a record of all the occasions you have asked for it back and then ask a solicitor to send a formal letter asking for the return of the property. If the property is still not returned, there may sufficient reason to justify making a complaint of theft to the police.

Every case will be different and it may be, for example, that the borrower claims the property was a gift. In circumstances like that, the police may not be willing to take action and you must to go to the Civil Courts to get your property back. In the case of a borrowed power drill this may not be economically worthwhile. Below is a brief summary of the offence of theft, it is not intended to be a comprehensive explanation.

Theft occurs when someone dishonestly appropriates (takes possession of or makes use of exclusively for oneself/someone else without permission) some property that does not belong to him or her and treats it as his or her own and has no intention of returning the property to its rightful owner.

Examples:

B is walking along the street chatting on her mobile phone when C runs past and takes the phone from her hand and runs off with it.
B takes an item from the shelf of a shop and leaves the shop without paying for it (shoplifting).

mpbaz

wealdroam wrote: »

Looks like your knowledge of the theft act is as good as that of the sale of goods act.

So whats your point? Mr constructive?

mpbaz

bazster wrote: »

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.

It is also clear to me..by not returning said item it becomes theft, in fact if you they want to play him by his own dirty rules claim he stole it that way they will get it back and at no cost to them..by being honest it is costing you and it shouldnt although it is up to you. I would ring his work and if he refused to speak to me ask to speak to his boss lets see how quick he returns it then!!

Fosterdog

DD1966 wrote: »

The lens came with the camera and the package cost about £700... expensive i know, but i knew it would be put to good use, it's a Canon eos 1000d. not sure how much the lens would be if bought separately! i guess around £300 as the camera alone would have been about £500.

How long ago did you purchase the camera?

Do you have your receipt to find out the cost of the lens, or at least to find the exact model to find the current value?

It may be worth looking into everything you got with the package, I have the exact same camera that I bought almost four years ago and only paid £500 back then with a case, flash gun and additional lens (tamron 70-500) so depending on when you bought it the camera was not worth £500 it wasn't worth that on it's own brand new and it's an old model now, the replacement 1100d came out over a year ago.

I'm only questioning it because the lens may not be worth much at all now as they do lose value quite quickly the same as all technology.

CoolHotCold

mpbaz wrote: »

I wouldnt even go down the civil route until you have spoken with the police as it is not a civil dispute its a criminal act ,theft direct them around to the work address lets see how uncooperative he is then!!

It isn't theft if it was lent originally. Its easier to think of the item as cash, you wouldn't go to the police if you lent your pay £500 and they didn't pay you back, if they took it without your knowledge than yes.

To prove theft you'd have to be able to prove that the person who borrowed the camera had no intention of returning it when it was lent. Without that the police can't do much, neither can the CPS.

It's a civil matter.

arcon5

I trust you know where he lives? Visit him at his address. He can't ignore you then and you will know exactly where you stand.

We can all discuss the technicalities of the word 'theft' until we're blue in the face, but lets face it, the police are not going to be interested. A lot of genuine cases seem to get fobbed off as a civil matter these days - let alone this one.

I think court should be your last resort in this case. I'm betting a quick conversation with his parents will soon see him pull his finger out.

arcon5

bazster wrote: »

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.

There's a big difference between trying to collect your property somebody has failed to return and continuously contacting people to confirm they do not have a license for something that isn't even mandatory!!!

markelock

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.

Can I borrow your car?:)

mpbaz

MAKELOCK-exactly my point, I am not saying the police will be interested they wont for sure but that does not mean it is not theft.

As I have said earlier in the post if I borrow your car and fail to return it what is that a civil matter...er no its theft and a police matter.

ColdHotCold-Money is a completely seperate entity as nobody can prove ownership unless you have just got it out of the bank that day and stood under a CCTV camera and gave it to said person even then it will be hard to prove theft in that case (he said I could borrow it just not paid it back yet, claim)

In this case you can prove ownership and that a theft has now occured due to time frame and calls amde to so called borrower who has now stolen it.

Like I said contact his work and ask for him if he refuses to speak or refuses to return it then ask for his boss and let them know exactly who they have working for them, they have a right to know they have a thief working for them dont they?