Ex won't give property back

Guest101

Dill wrote: »

You must realise you are annoying people if you feel the need to actually tell other forum users to put yourself on their ignore list :rotfl:

It's just a forum. I normally scroll past when someone's baiting or if there's a big argument going on. Unless it's particularly funny or entertaining, as sometimes happens..

Being annoyed, just like being offended, is a personal choice - I cant help you with that.


It's not my fault you are offended or annoyed by opinions which don't match your own set of morals.


I wasn't suggesting you add me to your ignore list, just explaining how you could do so if you wished.


If you aren't able to appreciate that people will have opinions which you don't agree with, then I would suggest that is a failing on your part.


I'm not baiting (deliberately provided controversial view points), simply providing my view point. Just like you do yours.


I was surprised that you suggested the OP should sneak into her exes house and search through his belongings - whilst your perfectly entitled to have any opinion you wish, there are criminal offence potentially being committed if the OP was to do this.

bluelass

Wow they must be some dandy camera's if you spent five thousand pounds on them.
Are you a wedding photographer?. Surely if he is being shifty and denying you access to look for them its a red flag he has sold them?.
The only places he could get rid of them for cash are shops like cash generator and he would have got nowhere near the purchase price for them either.
If I had spent thousands on equipment I would have keep the receipt and warranty. If you make a insurance claim they will ask why you paid so much for a camera and proof of ownership or a photograph if you no longer have the receipt.
I know someone who does wedding photographs as a sideline and they could not afford to pay that amount on a camera so you must have one heck of a hobby.

Guest101

Person_one wrote: »

:rotfl:

I'd love to respond to this, but it's not worth a PPR.

Feel free to PM it, I don't report people for having an opinion, whether that's on myself or on any other subject

Guest101

bluelass wrote: »

Wow they must be some dandy camera's if you spent five thousand pounds on them.
Are you a wedding photographer?. Surely if he is being shifty and denying you access to look for them its a red flag he has sold them?.
The only places he could get rid of them for cash are shops like cash generator and he would have got nowhere near the purchase price for them either.
If I had spent thousands on equipment I would have keep the receipt and warranty. If you make a insurance claim they will ask why you paid so much for a camera and proof of ownership or a photograph if you no longer have the receipt.
I know someone who does wedding photographs as a sideline and they could not afford to pay that amount on a camera so you must have one heck of a hobby.

I disagree that it should be seen as a red flag. He simply may not want an ex snooping around his house. Seems fair enough. As I previously said that husband was unlikely to have kept them anyway, even if he did initially not return them.


I'm sure it's not difficult to find a photographer who would buy the kit.

bluelass

Guest101 wrote: »

I disagree that it should be seen as a red flag. He simply may not want an ex snooping around his house. Seems fair enough. As I previously said that husband was unlikely to have kept them anyway, even if he did initially not return them.


I'm sure it's not difficult to find a photographer who would buy the kit.

If he has sold them he most probably received cash or a cheque and don't places who buy them ask for ID such as a utility bill or driving licence etc. If so wouldn't the police go to local pawn shops like cash converters to see if an item/s of that description and value were sold and if so who the seller was?
Don't CID do that in a case of high value items reported stolen routinely?. Obviously if he sold them for cash or even a cheque to someone on the street there would be no traceable evidence to go on and if he is as the OP says he probably sold them on a nudge nudge wink basis. But wouldn't police check his bank account or even the OP's?. After all in a report of theft of such high value wouldn't they also think the OP could have sold them herself and then try to claim on her insurance to purchase new kit? Sorry OP if this sounds awful but they would look at all possibilities involving you and your soon to be ex.

Guest101

bluelass wrote: »

If he has sold them he most probably received cash or a cheque and don't places who buy them ask for ID such as a utility bill or driving licence etc. - yes they do, however it would be easy to get around this. And that's assuming the OP knows which shop bought it and when. If so wouldn't the police go to local pawn shops like cash converters to see if an item/s of that description and value were sold and if so who the seller was? - Sure, if it's a week or two. But 6 months? My area has at least 5 places that deal in this type of thing - officially - over a 6 month period, with cameras being common....
Don't CID do that in a case of high value items reported stolen routinely?. - sometimes, but again 6 month period, over an unknown geographic area with a common item. As opposed to a distinct ring. Obviously if he sold them for cash or even a cheque to someone on the street there would be no traceable evidence to go on and if he is as the OP says he probably sold them on a nudge nudge wink basis. - absolutely. Or even an unknowing buyer. But wouldn't police check his bank account or even the OP's?. - No. Not for something like this. It's too small After all in a report of theft of such high value wouldn't they also think the OP could have sold them herself and then try to claim on her insurance to purchase new kit? - The police do not have the time or resources for this. If the insurers flag it up as suspicious the police may get involved. Sorry OP if this sounds awful but they would look at all possibilities involving you and your soon to be ex.

The police will give it a medium amount of attention, if the ex suggests she sold it yourself, they may investigate further.


In all likelihood the crime will be on paper only (ie a reference number)

bluelass

burlington6 wrote: »

That's why I asked if there was any proof of purchase.

If she paid £5000, it isn't worth that now.

The most expensive item in my possession is my engagement ring. It cost my husband just under two thousand pounds in 1997 and is now worth around three thousand pounds at todays saleable value. We do not have the original receipt as since our engagement we have moved home twice and the receipt amongst others became lost. Our insurance asked us to specify any items of high value eg anything worth over four thousand and my ring was mentioned. We advised them the original receipt was no longer around and they just advised us to take a photo of it and keep it on my phone just in case. Three thousand is just about right for a 90 point marquise diamond set in 18 carat gold so if it does become lost or stolen they can give me a exact replacement. Most insurance companies ask you to specify any high value items including jewellery, artwork etc. And our insurance replaces the item and does not give you the cash which I agree with as it helps reduce false claims. A person with a camera which costs more than I paid to have new windows and doors all around my 2 bed semi sounds a bit odd considering it is only a hobby. I like designer handbags but could never justify buying any.

onomatopoeia99

bluelass wrote: »

Wow they must be some dandy camera's if you spent five thousand pounds on them.

As I already mentioned, good quality camera equipment, is very expensive. That's not really relevant though, nor is the fact that you know someone that does amateur wedding photography on the side with lesser quality equipment. The OP is missing certain items, which they believe are in the possession of their ex who won't grant them access to look for them, it doesn't matter what they are, what they can be used for or how much they cost.

burlington6

bluelass wrote: »

The most expensive item in my possession is my engagement ring. It cost my husband just under two thousand pounds in 1997 and is now worth around three thousand pounds at todays saleable value. We do not have the original receipt as since our engagement we have moved home twice and the receipt amongst others became lost. Our insurance asked us to specify any items of high value eg anything worth over four thousand and my ring was mentioned. We advised them the original receipt was no longer around and they just advised us to take a photo of it and keep it on my phone just in case. Three thousand is just about right for a 90 point marquise diamond set in 18 carat gold so if it does become lost or stolen they can give me a exact replacement. Most insurance companies ask you to specify any high value items including jewellery, artwork etc. And our insurance replaces the item and does not give you the cash which I agree with as it helps reduce false claims. A person with a camera which costs more than I paid to have new windows and doors all around my 2 bed semi sounds a bit odd considering it is only a hobby. I like designer handbags but could never justify buying any.

One of my watches is worth thousands more than I paid for it based on the value increase of gold.

Electronics, on the whole, don't benefit from such increases.

burlington6

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

As I already mentioned, good quality camera equipment, is very expensive. That's not really relevant though, nor is the fact that you know someone that does amateur wedding photography on the side with lesser quality equipment. The OP is missing certain items, which they believe are in the possession of their ex who won't grant them access to look for them, it doesn't matter what they are, what they can be used for or how much they cost.

Yes it does. Even if he admitted to selling them and she paid £5000 for them a year or two ago doesn't mean he owes her £5000.

He would only have to put her in the position she was in when she ''forget'' to take them from his house. Second hand units is what he would owe her.