It looks like I've been scammed - advice needed

hollydays

018125 wrote: »

While being threatening was not my intention, perhaps he did feel threatened, I don't know? I tried to be careful with my phrasing, but really I just wanted some kind of reaction from him.

Given that he returned my £1k 8 minutes later, I'm not going to worry about a thief with a history of stealing at least £145k from his customers.

Edit: If you're referring to 'threatening' to tell his daughter that he's a con-man, then yes I was. And I had every intention of writing to his family to let them know.

No I think it could have been read as " I know who your daughter is and where she lives" which could be read as an implied threat.

018125

Yes, quite.

visidigi

018125 wrote: »

Yes, quite.

Yeah.

That's not cool.

Even if you got your money back (that doesn't make it right...) - I wouldn't recommend this as an approach others should follow.

This could have ended very differently.

018125

visidigi wrote: »

Yeah.

That's not cool.

Even if you got your money back (that doesn't make it right...) - I wouldn't recommend this as an approach others should follow.

This could have ended very differently.

I appreciate you sharing your experience and wisdom, I'm sure your guidance will be respected.

warehouse

visidigi wrote: »

Wow.

Is it just me that finds this creepy and threatening?

Well I don't. An obvious conman who thinks nothing of walking away with thousands of pounds of other peoples money. Gloves are off IMO.

unholyangel

warehouse wrote: »

Well I don't. An obvious conman who thinks nothing of walking away with thousands of pounds of other peoples money. Gloves are off IMO.

I'm glad OP got their money back. But imagine if the trader had refused and told OP to take him to court and then showed the judge the messages he'd been sent? Even if OP was careful to word it in a way that the police wouldn't be able to take action, a court is not going to be impressed with that at all.

Two wrongs and all that. Plus I don't think you can really take the moral high ground when you're wrestling with them down in the gutter.

018125

unholyangel wrote: »

I'm glad OP got their money back. But imagine if the trader had refused and told OP to take him to court and then showed the judge the messages he'd been sent? Even if OP was careful to word it in a way that the police wouldn't be able to take action, a court is not going to be impressed with that at all.

Two wrongs and all that. Plus I don't think you can really take the moral high ground when you're wrestling with them down in the gutter.

Thanks for joining this thread, it's going to be very useful to have a law expert help me with this issue.

I'm just shocked to hear that a judge would interpret my email about telling his daughter about his business practises so harshly!

unholyangel

018125 wrote: »

I'm just shocked to hear that a judge would interpret my email about telling his daughter about his business practises so harshly!

As a general rule, its a business dispute and you are supposed to treat it as such. Any attempt to turn it into a personal dispute is going to be viewed with disdain at best, let alone one involving their children.

Basically anything they view as unreasonable behaviour/conduct.

If you actually knew that daughter, then it might have been reasonable to mention it but you didn't. You purposely went to the effort of finding out her name and then used it. Quite frankly, you're lucky you're not up on blackmail charges - which requires no explicit demands or threats, they can be implied (and nor do the threats need to be one of violence, it can be any threat of action deemed detrimental or unpleasant to the person on the receiving end of the threat).

MikeWhite

unholyangel wrote: »

As a general rule, its a business dispute and you are supposed to treat it as such. Any attempt to turn it into a personal dispute is going to be viewed with disdain at best, let alone one involving their children.

Basically anything they view as unreasonable behaviour/conduct.

If you actually knew that daughter, then it might have been reasonable to mention it but you didn't. You purposely went to the effort of finding out her name and then used it. Quite frankly, you're lucky you're not up on blackmail charges - which requires no explicit demands or threats, they can be implied (and nor do the threats need to be one of violence, it can be any threat of action deemed detrimental or unpleasant to the person on the receiving end of the threat).

Assuming the daughter is not part of the business, of course?

018125

unholyangel wrote: »

As a general rule, its a business dispute and you are supposed to treat it as such. Any attempt to turn it into a personal dispute is going to be viewed with disdain at best, let alone one involving their children.

Basically anything they view as unreasonable behaviour/conduct.

If you actually knew that daughter, then it might have been reasonable to mention it but you didn't. You purposely went to the effort of finding out her name and then used it. Quite frankly, you're lucky you're not up on blackmail charges - which requires no explicit demands or threats, they can be implied (and nor do the threats need to be one of violence, it can be any threat of action deemed detrimental or unpleasant to the person on the receiving end of the threat).

You've managed to misunderstand threatening behaviour and blackmail law. I'm sorry that my behaviour conflicts with your moral code, and you are entitled to your opinion, but your comments in relation to my email are nonsense and I hope nobody takes them seriously.

Thank you for your input, it's always good to hear other opinions.