Cost of repairing criminal damage

pendragon_arther

I'm not sure it's criminal damage. Why on earth would the police get involved? Surely it's a civil matter and the small claims court is the way to go with suing this idiot who couldn't organise a !!!!up in a brewery.

mollieminall

The police say it is a crime just as it would be if a gang of kids spray painted around a town or someone covered your car in egg. The paint was reported originally by someone who just woke up in the morning and found it over their property.
The painters are all fairly well- to -do members of local town. Sadly I think the police are unlikely to prosecute. If they were a local gang of teenagers it would probably be a very different story.
Even if these idiots were prosecuted there is no guarantee they would have to pay anything towards a clean up.
I will write one more letter and offer this fool the choice of paying the cost of removing his unsolicited artwork or apologizing. Sometimes an apology can make a situation better. For me and others t is not all about the money.

shaun_from_Africa

pendragon_arther wrote: »

I'm not sure it's criminal damage. Why on earth would the police get involved?

Why wouldn't it be criminal damage? It's no different to a grafitti artist painting on someone else's property or someone tipping paint on your car.

The actual law (criminal damage act) states:

Destroying or damaging property.

(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

The painter didn't have permission (so no lawful excuse) and the paint couldn't easily be removed (therefore being reckless) so criminal damage was caused.

RS2000.

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be criminal damage? It's no different to a grafitti artist painting on someone else's property or someone tipping paint on your car.

The actual law (criminal damage act) states:


The painter didn't have permission (so no lawful excuse) and the paint couldn't easily be removed (therefore being reckless) so criminal damage was caused.

The lawful excuse will be to mark out the route of the race as per instruction of the running club.

shaun_from_Africa

RS2000. wrote: »

The lawful excuse will be to mark out the route of the race as per instruction of the running club.

How can giving someone permission to deface another person's property without first getting permission of the property owner be a lawful excuse?
Are you saying that it would be okay for me to tip paint on your car provided that someone else gave me instructions to do it?


The person who did the painting may well not be liable provided that they were told and truly believed that the OP had given permission for the paint to be applied but if not, they have no excuse.

bod1467

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

The person who did the painting may well not be liable provided that they were told and truly believed that the OP had given permission for the paint to be applied but if not, they have no excuse.

Is criminal damage an absolute offence? If yes then their belief would be irrelevant.

(I agree with the rest of what you're saying).

shaun_from_Africa

bod1467 wrote: »

Is criminal damage an absolute offence? If yes then their belief would be irrelevant.

(I agree with the rest of what you're saying).

No. Criminal damage isn't an absolute offence

Without lawful excuse.
A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—

(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances

(3)For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5

RS2000.

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

How can giving someone permission to deface another person's property without first getting permission of the property owner be a lawful excuse?
Are you saying that it would be okay for me to tip paint on your car provided that someone else gave me instructions to do it?


The person who did the painting may well not be liable provided that they were told and truly believed that the OP had given permission for the paint to be applied but if not, they have no excuse.

I made the comment in relation to the tradesman who painted the fences thus marking out a route. In one paragraph you disagree and in the next you agree?

Are you suggesting that they should have sought permission from every landowner before carring out contracted work from the running club organising the event?

arcon5

RS2000. wrote: »

I made the comment in relation to the tradesman who painted the fences thus marking out a route. In one paragraph you disagree and in the next you agree?

If you read the thread properly you will see ops not claiming from the tradesman, he's claiming against the organiser.

RS2000.

arcon5 wrote: »

If you read the thread properly you will see ops not claiming from the tradesman, he's claiming against the organiser.

If you read the criminal damage act it states a person without lawful authority destroys or damages.

What has the organiser damaged?