"Borrowed" Guitar

dom_london

I don't like the tone of that.


The world is full of crooks, thieves and thugs thanks to people who advocate a careless "laissez-faire" approach to life. Crime pays, and this is not about to stop, because those who commit it aren't subject to fair punishment, even when identified.


However, I am not one of these people. I am an honest citizen who will defend my rights and, more often than not, help others defend theirs, too. I have been subject to all kinds of abuse in public places and on public transport for reacting to improper behavior that others ignore and I have come close, several times, to being beaten up for it when facing groups whilst I was on my own. But I'll carry on standing up, for me and the others.


So don't assume you know what kind of person I am. I've been polite with you, and will remain polite, but don't call me a criminal or a thug. I've never assaulted, hurt nor threatened to assault or hurt anyone, and I wouldn't have the physical strength to do it anyway. That tenant stole months' worth of rent from my old dad and because the law wouldn't help us appropriately, I had to put an end to it. I just needed to be firm and most people will confuse firmness with strength because they're nothing but cowards in the first place.


Would I do it again? Any time.

pjfromuk

This IS theft and the Police should deal, assuming the relevant acts were in the UK? All of the previous replies saying otherwise are clearly wrong. BEWARE taking advice from armchair lawyers!!!

The offence is committed at the time he decided to sell what wasn't his. The fact he took initial possession legally is irrelevant

If you 'borrowed' a hire car and promptly sold it on, you would be arrested pretty quickly. If you lent the item, the other person has no right to 'treat it as there own' and sell it.

Go back to the police, push your case and insist they investigate. It will be for him to 'prove' the item was a gift, and if I were the Magistrate I know what verdict I would be giving - "GUILT"

FAO - Mr LEWIS - Martin, this thread concerns me greatly. I fear there are people who will read some of these posts and actually believe they are receiving good advice. It carries real dangers if people believe what another person says. You will see for yourself that so many contibutors here have no idea at all about what is, and what is not theft. perhaps there is a case for actually having a legal 'expert' post the 'correct' position , which of course is theft (proving it in court is obviously a different matter altogether but no reason to simply ignore the act. Who knows, the alleged offender may actually confess if interviewed!)

grayme-m

pjfromuk wrote: »

This IS theft and the Police should deal, assuming the relevant acts were in the UK? All of the previous replies saying otherwise are clearly wrong. BEWARE taking advice from armchair lawyers!!!

The offence is committed at the time he decided to sell what wasn't his. The fact he took initial possession legally is irrelevant

If you 'borrowed' a hire car and promptly sold it on, you would be arrested pretty quickly. If you lent the item, the other person has no right to 'treat it as there own' and sell it.

Go back to the police, push your case and insist they investigate. It will be for him to 'prove' the item was a gift, and if I were the Magistrate I know what verdict I would be giving - "GUILT"

FAO - Mr LEWIS - Martin, this thread concerns me greatly. I fear there are people who will read some of these posts and actually believe they are receiving good advice. It carries real dangers if people believe what another person says. You will see for yourself that so many contibutors here have no idea at all about what is, and what is not theft. perhaps there is a case for actually having a legal 'expert' post the 'correct' position , which of course is theft (proving it in court is obviously a different matter altogether but no reason to simply ignore the act. Who knows, the alleged offender may actually confess if interviewed!)

What makes your anonymous (to me) advice more robust than anyone else's?

'Go back to the police, push your case and insist they investigate. It will be for him to 'prove' the item was a gift, and if I were the Magistrate I know what verdict I would be giving - "GUILT"'

How do you prove that something was gifted rather than lent?

19lottie82

pjfromuk wrote: »

This IS theft and the Police should deal, assuming the relevant acts were in the UK? All of the previous replies saying otherwise are clearly wrong. BEWARE taking advice from armchair lawyers!!!

The offence is committed at the time he decided to sell what wasn't his. The fact he took initial possession legally is irrelevant

If you 'borrowed' a hire car and promptly sold it on, you would be arrested pretty quickly. If you lent the item, the other person has no right to 'treat it as there own' and sell it.

Go back to the police, push your case and insist they investigate. It will be for him to 'prove' the item was a gift, and if I were the Magistrate I know what verdict I would be giving - "GUILT"

FAO - Mr LEWIS - Martin, this thread concerns me greatly. I fear there are people who will read some of these posts and actually believe they are receiving good advice. It carries real dangers if people believe what another person says. You will see for yourself that so many contibutors here have no idea at all about what is, and what is not theft. perhaps there is a case for actually having a legal 'expert' post the 'correct' position , which of course is theft (proving it in court is obviously a different matter altogether but no reason to simply ignore the act. Who knows, the alleged offender may actually confess if interviewed!)

Sorry, but I would bet all my worldly possessions on the fact that you are wrong. You seem, rather convinced tho, can I ask what you base your claims on? Do you have any example cases?

First off, this is a civil matter NOT a criminal one. The police won't get involved.

Secondly, even if it was a criminal matter, unless the OP has failed to mention it, they have no proof that they didn't gift the guitar to the friend. It would simply be their word against their (ex) friends. Therefore there is no court in the country that would convict. In fact, it wouldn't even get to court.
It wouldn't be for the other party to prove it wasn't a gift, it would be for the OP to prove that it wasn't.

Thirdly, the car hire comparison is a non starter as a comparison. A legally binding agreement with paperwork is put in place before the agreement is put into motion.
If the OP had a similar arrangement with his friend before he lent the guitar, he prob would have a case I court, but he didn't, so he doesn't.

adouglasmhor

dom_london wrote: »

I don't like the tone of that.
I really don't care what criminals think.

So don't assume you know what kind of person I am. I've been polite with you, and will remain polite, but don't call me a criminal or a thug. I've never assaulted, hurt nor threatened to assault or hurt anyone, and I wouldn't have the physical strength to do it anyway. That tenant stole months' worth of rent from my old dad and because the law wouldn't help us appropriately,
Would I do it again? Any time.

And you stole his laptop, and broke the law not civil law but criminal law, there is a legal way to do but you chose to do it your way instead of waiting for the law to run its course.

Condemned by your own words.

jess1974

adouglasmhor wrote: »

And you stole his laptop, and broke the law not civil law but criminal law, there is a legal way to do but you chose to do it your way instead of waiting for the law to run its course.

Condemned by your own words.

The legal way would have taken months, the law is a joke and the tenant not paying the rent started it all, i'm sure the laptop was only taken to compensate for the rent that was not paid....not sure why you are defending somebody who was stealing to start with !!!

adouglasmhor

jess1974 wrote: »

The legal way would have taken months, the law is a joke and the tenant not paying the rent started it all, i'm sure the laptop was only taken to compensate for the rent that was not paid....not sure why you are defending somebody who was stealing to start with !!!

I am defending the rule of law over mob rule. You are only hearing one side of the story. There are even times when it is legal to withhold rent. If the tennant had gone to the police Dom would have been cautioned at the very least.

If his dad didn't want to do it legaly, maybe he's wasn't really suited to being a landlord.

dom_london

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I am defending the rule of law over mob rule. You are only hearing one side of the story. There are even times when it is legal to withhold rent. If the tennant had gone to the police Dom would have been cautioned at the very least.

If his dad didn't want to do it legaly, maybe he's wasn't really suited to being a landlord.

Picture this: you're a shopkeeper and every single day of the month, a customer comes to your shop and helps themselves to £30 from your till. They do this openly right in front of you; you have the thief's name & address and you have CCTV footage recording the act but for some the reason the police tell you they might do something about it only in a year or two, and in the meantime your only choice is to witness the daily theft and sit tight, because that's what the law says and that's part of the risk of being a shopkeeper. Are you still so sure you're on the tenant's side when looking at it this way?


Call me a criminal if that's the only conclusion you're able to reach. In the meantime, if the law is unable to protect those it is supposed to protect in the first place because it is either unfair, plain stupid or won't or can't be enforced then I choose fairness, decency, common sense, self-respect and morality over it.


And the tenant didn't even ask for anything back; he just left, as he was, of course, quids in by a comfortable margin. I can probably say I just "borrowed" his laptop the same way our friend's guitar was "borrowed". Interesting perspective now, isn't it? I borrowed something from somebody who stole from me so I am a dangerous criminal and I ought to give everything back now, or else, whilst the guitar thief gets all the support he can from the community and shouldn't be subject to any attempt to recover the stolen property? There goes common sense...

adouglasmhor

dom_london wrote: »

Picture this: you're a shopkeeper and every single day of the month, a customer comes to your shop and helps themselves to £30 from your till. They do this openly right in front of you; you have the thief's name & address and you have CCTV footage recording the act but for some the reason the police tell you they might do something about it only in a year or two, and in the meantime your only choice is to witness the daily theft and sit tight, because that's what the law says and that's part of the risk of being a shopkeeper. Are you still so sure you're on the tenant's side when looking at it this way?
Theft is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE, not paying your rent is a civil matter, you are a self confessed thief, (of a laptop), A shopkeeper can detain or even arrest the thief themselves and the police will come


Call me a criminal [STRIKE]if that's the only conclusion you're able to reach.[/STRIKE] as it's true and you have admitted itIn the meantime, if the law is unable to protect those it is supposed to protect in the first place because it is either unfair, plain stupid or won't or can't be enforced then I choose fairness, decency, common sense, self-respect and morality over it.No you chose to sidestep the law and do what you wnated


And the tenant didn't even ask for anything back; he just left, as he was, of course, quids in by a comfortable margin. I can probably say I just "borrowed" his laptop the same way our friend's guitar was "borrowed". Interesting perspective now, isn't it? I borrowed something from somebody who stole from me so I am a dangerous criminal and I ought to give everything back now, or else, whilst the guitar thief gets all the support he can from the community and shouldn't be subject to any attempt to recover the stolen property? where did I say thatThere goes common sense...

Comon sense does not mean just take the word of someone and ignore the other LOL
You came on here with your big story of how you sorted it out outside the law; you are a thief by your own words. Whether the tenant complained or not it’s still theft.
I would say ignorant rather than dangerous, personally if I had been treated like that by a lackey or relative of the landlord I would have said see you in court, reported you for the theft and laughed up my sleeve at you, all within the law.
I have never failed to pay my rent but I did have a friend who took his landlord to court to carry out outstanding repairs. He ended up paying no rent for years, while the landlord and his brother tried all sort of dirty tricks to get him out (it would have been cheaper in the long run if they had got the work done, and the rent was paid into a separate account and they would have got it all had they done so). After they were arrested for breeching bail conditions; they illegally sold the house as a vacant possession, and the new landlord wrote of the outstanding rent in exchange for my friend moving out when he found out. He bought his first house using that as a deposit.

JayD

Sadly I agree with so many others here - frustrating and unjust though it is, I think you need to write this debt off. Unless you can trakc down his address and he doesn't move on when you have .... and unless you can prove that you only lent - and did not give - the guitar to him, you are really just getting yourself increasingly upset over something you have little hope of sorting satisfactorily.

Please don't let this person make any more of your life miserable than they already have. Tell yourself that he is a loathsome individual who, hopefully, will get his comeuppance one day and move on. He does not warrant any more of your misery or time.