Problem with person i sold item to

Tothepoint.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Yes, the threat of court proceedings. Not implied, but not implicit either

Semantics, don't you just love 'em?

Which isn't an offence or else you'd be arrested for sending a LBA.

[Deleted User]

Tothepoint. wrote: »

Which isn't an offence or else you'd be arrested for sending a LBA.

I'm perfectly aware of that!
The discussion was over whether it was an implied threat, not whether court action was an offence.

Tothepoint. wrote: »

I know far more than you do about it.

What's the point of arguing about all this ? The OP has already rung the Police!

Tothepoint.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

What's the point of arguing about it? The OP has already rung the Police!

There is no point and no consumer rights issues either.

naedanger

Tothepoint. wrote: »

Which isn't an offence or else you'd be arrested for sending a LBA.

I think you and Moneyineptitude have missed the point lucy03 was making. Her point is that the threat was not direct as it had an ambiguous meaning - one interpretation being perfectly legal and another implied meaning i.e. of physical trouble.

Nevertheless the police did not allow the potential legal interpretation from preventing them taking action over the indirect threat.

People make veiling/indirect/implied threats in the hope that they can get away with it. It does not mean that the police are bound to ignore it just because the threat was not stated explicitly.

Of course the police have limited resources and might just say call 999 if the person turns up. But in some cases where there is a higher level of threat (e.g. because of the history of who is making the threat) I would expect them to do more.

lucy03

Tothepoint. wrote: »

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you clearly don't know how it works.

I know for a fact it does, I've spent enough hours on committees with police officers in my job. If anyone has a concern about a threat, whether direct or implied, they can contact the police. The OP has, I understand, done that and received the appropriate advice.

The reason is what I've heard from every police officer I've ever spoken to at least. They'd rather hear information than not hear it. Others can do as they please, but I would always report anything that I considered to be of potential use. The police can then do as they want with it.

I have never heard a police officer encourage people not to report things of concern using non-emergency forms of communication. I've heard police officers comment that they get irritated when having to attend an appointment with an individual about a reported crime that the individual didn't want, and nor really did the police, but never that someone can't report a concern. The police can always just reply with a "we've noted the issue, please let us know if they send anything else".

lucy03

naedanger wrote: »

I think you and Moneyineptitude have missed the point lucy03 was making. Her point is that the threat was not direct as it had an ambiguous meaning - one interpretation being perfectly legal and another implied meaning i.e. of physical trouble.

Thanks, that was what I referring to. I forget the exact wording, but it was something similar to what I quoted. There was no crime committed with that wording, it could easily mean that they meant trouble in that they'd be going to court to get their money via small claims.

But the procedure there was as I expected, and as I've always experienced it. Tell the police and they can decide what to do. They can (i) do nothing, (ii) take pro-active action in reminding the person that their comments could be misconstrued so don't do it again, or (iii) deal with the matter as a potential crime.

The reason I initially posted was just to comment that the OP had done what I considered to be the right thing. And the police acted as I expected they would by the sounds of it.

lucy03

Originally Posted by naedanger
Of course a crime does not have to be committed for something to be of interest to the police. They have a role in preventing crime.

Tothepoint. wrote: »

I suggest you have a read of the home office crime recording rules before you jump on that one.

I've just read it. It entirely agrees with naedanger. There are entire sections and supporting documents on how general information provided to the police is dealt with and categorised, including the preventation of crime. It's entirely in line with everything I've ever experienced with the police.

Tothepoint.

lucy03 wrote: »

Originally Posted by naedanger
Of course a crime does not have to be committed for something to be of interest to the police. They have a role in preventing crime.



I've just read it. It entirely agrees with naedanger. There are entire sections and supporting documents on how general information provided to the police is dealt with and categorised, including the preventation of crime. [ is It's entirely in line with everything I've ever experienced with the police.[/B]

Well in that case given what the ops said no offence has taken place and there has been no threat made.

You'll know why I am correct in making that statement.

hollydays

Tothepoint. wrote: »

I know far more than you do about it.

Course you do sweetie.
And your people skills are great too.
My Dads bigger than your dad .
So just to summarise , its wise to speak to the police when someone with a violent history gets difficult with you over a consumer issue, as they can clearly access the PNC and the op can't.

You're getting very confused about the difference between " ringing the police" and " reporting a crime"

Tothepoint.

hollydays wrote: »

Course you do sweetie.
And your people skills are great too.
My Dads bigger than your dad .
So just to summarise , its wise to speak to the police when someone with a violent history gets difficult with you over a consumer issue, as they can clearly access the PNC and the op can't.

You're getting very confused about the difference between " ringing the police" and " reporting a crime"

Care to explain what the PNC has to do with it?