Getting the keys to the M235 back..
Discussion
Go round and ask for the key.
If he refuses walk away and return with a letter stating that if the keys are not returned within 48 hours you will get the car recoded and purchase a new key and charge him for the cost.
If no keys simply follow through on the threat.
If he won't pay use moneyclaim online.
He'll pay.
He has no legal right to keep the key unless he (or his daughter if he is acting on her behalf) has a financial interest in the car, however, be very careful he doesn't claim the key was a 'gift' and implies he has a right to use the vehicle.
Or... just wait till everything else is sorted or has gone completely tits up.
If he refuses walk away and return with a letter stating that if the keys are not returned within 48 hours you will get the car recoded and purchase a new key and charge him for the cost.
If no keys simply follow through on the threat.
If he won't pay use moneyclaim online.
He'll pay.
He has no legal right to keep the key unless he (or his daughter if he is acting on her behalf) has a financial interest in the car, however, be very careful he doesn't claim the key was a 'gift' and implies he has a right to use the vehicle.
Or... just wait till everything else is sorted or has gone completely tits up.
Edited by lostkiwi on Tuesday 2nd February 14:24
UK345 said:
Go round tonight and ask him politely for them. Make out that the car is going back and you need the other key. Chances are he is just holding them to make sure that you play ball. It's his way of having a hold on you.
Either that or the father has seen his daughter's naughty pics of the OP and wants a bit himself.La Liga said:
he dishonesty is formed when he decides not to give the key back. The dishonesty doesn't need to occur at the point of appropriation or have anything to do with the original purpose and reason for which he acquired the property.
Permanent deprivation is more complex than simply keeping something permanently - if not most thieves would just say, 'I was going to return it'.
It isn't dishonest. Belligerent, unpleasant, unreasonable maybe. But not dishonest. You can't change the ordinary meaning of a simple word to suit. Permanent deprivation is more complex than simply keeping something permanently - if not most thieves would just say, 'I was going to return it'.
Audidodat said:
La Liga said:
The dishonesty is formed when he decides not to give the key back. The dishonesty doesn't need to occur at the point of appropriation or have anything to do with the original purpose and reason for which he acquired the property.
Permanent deprivation is more complex than simply keeping something permanently - if not most thieves would just say, 'I was going to return it'.
It isn't dishonest. Belligerent, unpleasant, unreasonable maybe. But not dishonest. You can't change the ordinary meaning of a simple word to suit.Permanent deprivation is more complex than simply keeping something permanently - if not most thieves would just say, 'I was going to return it'.
Do the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people result in keeping someone else's property for 'ransom' and give the other person no idea they may do so at the time they agree to keep it? Do the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people propose circumstances in which the they may keep the key (which they have no lawful basis to do so) 'forever'? Would the OP have left his key with the Dad had he known he would keep it in such circumstances? Would most people?
That's the fundamental test for dishonesty, which is a little more than the "every day meaning" you proposed, isn't it?
La Liga said:
he first part is sensible, the second part is terrible advice. I read somewhere you work in law, I presume it's not criminal.
The OP would likely be seen to be creating the breach since it'd be his presence at someone else's address causing the issues.
Interesting as I did this many moons ago. Officer attended with me and I got my stuff back. I assume because I asked politely and had a police officer standing there......... The OP would likely be seen to be creating the breach since it'd be his presence at someone else's address causing the issues.
ETA - OP I think La Liga is plod so follow his advice!
If you have a right to be on the property then the police will facilitate, within reason, that occurring to prevent a BOP. This mostly occurs in domestics where there's joint ownership but one party is moving out or when one party is happy for the second party to recover their property. The issue here is that the OP has no right to be on the property and if there's confrontation is likely to be his presence causing it, even if he's been quite reasonable to the other side.
La Liga said:
e accepted to keep the key for safe keeping and that was the agreement with the OP. He has since changed the agreement to use the key as leverage until an unresolved, and irrelevant financial matter has been resolved. He's made the return conditional with no basis in which to do so, and no indication at the time he appropriated it he would do (I presume). What if the OP can never satisfy the conditions and the key is kept 'forever'? That's a theoretical possibility here.
Do the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people result in keeping someone else's property for 'ransom' and give the other person no idea they may do so at the time they agree to keep it? Do the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people propose circumstances in which the they may keep the key (which they have no lawful basis to do so) 'forever'? Would the OP have left his key with the Dad had he known he would keep it in such circumstances? Would most people?
That's the fundamental test for dishonesty, which is a little more than the "every day meaning" you proposed, isn't it?
Without resorting to the keyboard equivalent of sleeping pills for all and sundry, the tests for dishonesty don't alter the meaning of the word. They are tests to establish if the conduct was dishonest. The definition of dishonest is not addressed in either statute or the authorities. The first (objective) test asks whether honest people would consider the conduct dishonest. The second (subjective) asks if the accused realised what they were doing would be judged dishonest. None of which embellishes, complicates or otherwise alters the straightforward meaning of the word dishonest.Do the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people result in keeping someone else's property for 'ransom' and give the other person no idea they may do so at the time they agree to keep it? Do the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people propose circumstances in which the they may keep the key (which they have no lawful basis to do so) 'forever'? Would the OP have left his key with the Dad had he known he would keep it in such circumstances? Would most people?
That's the fundamental test for dishonesty, which is a little more than the "every day meaning" you proposed, isn't it?
Audidodat said:
La Liga said:
He accepted to keep the key for safe keeping and that was the agreement with the OP. He has since changed the agreement to use the key as leverage until an unresolved, and irrelevant financial matter has been resolved. He's made the return conditional with no basis in which to do so, and no indication at the time he appropriated it he would do (I presume). What if the OP can never satisfy the conditions and the key is kept 'forever'? That's a theoretical possibility here.
Do the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people result in keeping someone else's property for 'ransom' and give the other person no idea they may do so at the time they agree to keep it? Do the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people propose circumstances in which the they may keep the key (which they have no lawful basis to do so) 'forever'? Would the OP have left his key with the Dad had he known he would keep it in such circumstances? Would most people?
That's the fundamental test for dishonesty, which is a little more than the "every day meaning" you proposed, isn't it?
Without resorting to the keyboard equivalent of sleeping pills for all and sundry, the tests for dishonesty don't alter the meaning of the word. They are tests to establish if the conduct was dishonest. The definition of dishonest is not addressed in either statute or the authorities. The first (objective) test asks whether honest people would consider the conduct dishonest. The second (subjective) asks if the accused realised what they were doing would be judged dishonest. None of which embellishes, complicates or otherwise alters the straightforward meaning of the word dishonest.Do the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people result in keeping someone else's property for 'ransom' and give the other person no idea they may do so at the time they agree to keep it? Do the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people propose circumstances in which the they may keep the key (which they have no lawful basis to do so) 'forever'? Would the OP have left his key with the Dad had he known he would keep it in such circumstances? Would most people?
That's the fundamental test for dishonesty, which is a little more than the "every day meaning" you proposed, isn't it?
As I outlined, completely changing the agreement as to why he's in possession of the property, and creating a conditional return to use as leverage to achieve an unrelated financial resolution is not the conduct of an honest person. Add to that there is theoretical scope for the keys to never been returned (you do see that, don't you?). How long do you think he needs to be in possession of them for you to think of it as theft? A week, a month, a year, 10 years, until he dies? Would the OP have given his key up if had known these circumstances would occur? If not, why not?
OED dishonesty said:
Behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way.
- The OP trusted his Dad with the keys for safe keeping. He also trusted him to return the keys when he wanted them back. To not return someone else's property when he has no lawful basis for the possession is untrustworthy. Changing the agreement as to why he was in possession of the property is untrustworthy. - Did the Dad agree to keep them for safe keeping? Yes. Did the FIL tell the OP he would keep them as leverage in an event he wanted an unrelated financial transaction completing prior to their return? No. That's deceitful and insincere.
The definitions differ slightly, but similar obvious deductions can be done with each.
What you also need to consider is that I said there's a prima facet case for theft. I didn't say it's definitive, did I? Until the precise circumstances are known, including interviewing the suspect and anyone else involved, it's not possible to say one way or another.
RobM77 said:
Sorry to say this, but to me at least from what you've described it sounds like they're holding access to your car as a bargaining tool should anything go wrong further down the line. I suspect if everything goes through you'll get the keys back and never hear any more of it. However, if it were me then I'd be asking BMW how much it costs to change the key for the car, at least so you know.
ETA: A quick google has revealed that BMW are one of the cheapest companies to get new keys from. An article I found said they were the cheapest, but I'm not sure I believe that. Either way, I'd spend the money and then sleep easy!
I agree. I'd also knock the cost of it off what she gets in the deal.ETA: A quick google has revealed that BMW are one of the cheapest companies to get new keys from. An article I found said they were the cheapest, but I'm not sure I believe that. Either way, I'd spend the money and then sleep easy!
Edited by RobM77 on Friday 29th January 15:44
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff