Where do I stand?

LannieDuck

If he's putting the phone down on you, he's being deliberately evasive, not just incompetent. Definitely send him a letter before action. Hopefully you've already done so

DD1966

Hi all,
I sent him a message on Facebook, i was polite but firm and told him in no uncertain terms that if he didn't get in touch regarding the return of the lens i would take it further! lo and behold my daughter gets a message from him apologising profusely for not getting in touch sooner and can they arrange to meet to return it! thats what i am waiting for now!
so hopefully we shall see the return of the lens soon! will keep you posted....

mpbaz

Excellent news lets hope he sticks to it..if not make sure it is followed up as he might just say yeah will give it back and then not even turn up!

Yorkie1

This is indeed capable of being theft.

For theft you need to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it -s.1(1) TA 68.

He did not acquire the property dishonestly - clearly it is not theft at that point.

However, at some point since that time, he has decided to keep it and not return it.

That decision falls within the previously cited definition of appropriates:-

"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.

By keeping it he is dealing with it as owner and assuming the rights of the owner, which is included in the definition of appropriation even though he originally did not steal the property.

Dishonesty is defined according to caselaw as well as the Act - it's arguable that most people would consider keeping an item against the wishes & requests of the owner isn't honest.

Property belonging to another - well that's obvious.

Permanent intention to deprive - he's refusing to give it back. That's clear evidence that he doesn't intend the owner to get it back.


All cases are fact specific, but this one is definitely capable in law of constituting theft.

jimboban

Fosterdog wrote: »

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.

As a footnote, if we're talking the 'standard' 1000D twin-lens package, and that it's the stock 18-55mm lens that comes with the camera (probably also came with a 70-300mm lens, which I guess the daughter would use in preference), the 18-55mm lens is worth £70 new - tops - and now is likely to be £30-40...