Computer repair

Sgt_Pepper_2

23n1th wrote: »

Well done two people who are wrong.

Op ignore them. Call the police.

The guy who took your computer lied to you and is now trying to get money from you for work you didnt ask him to do. If he doesnt return it then its theft. Its not your fault he completed work he was not told to complete.

Effectively they are attempting to force you to pay for something they did of their own accord without your consent, which if it ended there would be a civil matter. However they have decided to hold your computer to ransom to force you to pay which is theft.

Can you back your argument up with anything other than hot air?

23n1th

OK for the last time I will explain it.

[blue]Heres the basic definition of theft as per english stautue law:

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

(3)The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).

Dishonesty:

(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.

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.
(2)Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.

I am going to assume you understand what property is and that its the OP's property as the sections are too big to post here.

With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

(1)A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
(2)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.[/blue]

I have bolded out the relevant part for you.

Below is the OP and I have bolded the relevant parts for your benefit

Drinda wrote: »

... then he said he had better take it back to the shop, I told him not to bother because it is a few years old and I would not spend a lot on it, but he assured me there would be no charge for taking it and having a look and he would not do any repair until he phoned me first and I could say yes or no.

I phoned them 3pm today to see if they were bringing it back and he first said they had to clean it inside so they would charge me for that, that was the first lie because I have a very small vac that I keep just for the job and I gave it a thorough clean befor he came so he put me on hold for a min and when he came back he said he had mixed me up with another customer so I said well just return it, with that he said he had put a new graphic card in it and that is £75 plus £35 for doing it. I pointed out that he said he would not do anything until he phoned me and I could agree or not. He then demanded that I pay him over the phone with my card or he would keep my PC.

I have been advised to send a recorded letter giving them 5 days notice to return it in the same condition that they took it , so I phoned them to get their complete address and they said they are in Birmingham and put the phone down.

Therefore based on the information we have, no ifs, it is theft. The guy dishonestly appropriated the OP's property and is not giving it back to her (and therefore will permanently deprive her of it) unless she pays him money for something he said he wasn't going to do and she never asked him to do.

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Unless the OP has a written agreement stating exactly what work they required the repair people to carry out then there is no way that the police will be in the slightest bit interested.[/b]

Unless the "tech" company has a written agreement stating exactly what work the OP wanted them to carry out then the police will be interested as its theft.

All there appears to be at the moment is a lot of "I said" and "he said", with little or no proof of exactly what work was agreed and how much this would cost.
Because of this, it will come down to whether Trading standards of the county court think that there was a misunderstanding, breech of contract or deliberate deception, and I certainly wouldn't want to bet on the outcome of their decision.

We only have the information from the OP, based on that alone which is all we've got, its theft. You can play "whats ifs" all day until the other has told their side we don't know. If this is reported to the police a crime report for theft would be raised and enquiry carried out into it, thats how it works.

If it turns out its the OPs fault then the crime report will be written off accordingly, but before that enquiry needs to be carried out into the complaint.

How many different people do you need to tell you that holding goods in lieu of payment is not theft.
It can only be classed as theft if the repair agent is going to keep the computer once payment has been made.

It doesn't matter how many times or people if they are wrong. Based on the OP "holding goods in lieu of payment" is not what is occuring here.

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Can you back your argument up with anything other than hot air?

See above.

Sgt_Pepper_2

There will be no crime raised or any investigation by the police under the circumstances provided by the op.

23n1th

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

There will be no crime raised or any investigation by the police under the circumstances provided by the op.

Can you back your argument up with anything other than hot air?

Sgt_Pepper_2

23n1th wrote: »

Can you back your argument up with anything other than hot air?

Feel free to have a read of the home office rules for crime recording.

23n1th

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Feel free to have a read of the home office rules for crime recording.

So hot air then.

railbuff

23n1th wrote: »

So hot air then.

this is what he is refering too

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/counting-rules/count-recstan?view=Binary

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/counting-rules/

23n1th

2.2:

Following the initial registration, an incident will be recorded as a crime (notifiable offence) for offences
against an identified victim if, on the balance of probability:
(a) the circumstances as reported amount to a crime defined by law (the police will determine this,
based on their knowledge of the law and counting rules),
and
(b) there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

And per 3.2:

"When examining a report of an incident regarding offences related to identified victims, the test to be
applied in respect of recording a crime is that of the balance of probabilities: that is to say is the incident
more likely than not the result of a criminal act? In most cases, a belief by the victim (or person
reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim) that a crime has occurred is sufficient to justify
its recording as a crime, although this will not be the case in all circumstances. Effectively, a more victim
oriented approach is advocated."

---

So theft then.

Hackman_2

23n1th wrote: »

2.2:

Following the initial registration, an incident will be recorded as a crime (notifiable offence) for offences
against an identified victim if, on the balance of probability:
(a) the circumstances as reported amount to a crime defined by law (the police will determine this,
based on their knowledge of the law and counting rules),
and
(b) there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

And per 3.2:

"When examining a report of an incident regarding offences related to identified victims, the test to be
applied in respect of recording a crime is that of the balance of probabilities: that is to say is the incident
more likely than not the result of a criminal act? In most cases, a belief by the victim (or person
reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim) that a crime has occurred is sufficient to justify
its recording as a crime, although this will not be the case in all circumstances. Effectively, a more victim
oriented approach is advocated."

---

So theft then.

No, read the red part. The circumstances described by the OP does not make this a theft and numerous posters have told yoi this.

By all means OP waste your time but the Police are not the people to sort this for you.

Hackman_2

23n1th wrote: »

2.2:

Following the initial registration, an incident will be recorded as a crime (notifiable offence) for offences
against an identified victim if, on the balance of probability:
(a) the circumstances as reported amount to a crime defined by law (the police will determine this,
based on their knowledge of the law and counting rules),
and
(b) there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

And per 3.2:

"When examining a report of an incident regarding offences related to identified victims, the test to be
applied in respect of recording a crime is that of the balance of probabilities: that is to say is the incident
more likely than not the result of a criminal act? In most cases, a belief by the victim (or person
reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim) that a crime has occurred is sufficient to justify
its recording as a crime, although this will not be the case in all circumstances. Effectively, a more victim
oriented approach is advocated."

---

So theft then.