The Police and lost, lost property!

[Derek Smith]

The problem with forums is that it is easy to mistake the intent of an individual post. I'm as bad as anyone, well not anyone as there are some . . . but I think one has to take into consideration the person's history of posting when trying to work out whether they were being nasty or just making a joke.

I suppose the error is mine in that I'm no big fan of emoticons (and especially the name!) and I have a certain conceit in that, as a writer, I make the assumption that I make my meanings clear.

I have been criticised for long posts although I find that they are much less likely to be misinterpreted.

So my apologies to GC8 and anyone who finds my meaning obscure. All I will say is that if I want to have a go at anyone, I do tend to make my intent clear.

[GC8]

julian64 said:

GC8 said:

julian64 said:

GC8 said:

Derek Smith said:

GC8 said:

Yes but this isn't about half-arsed opinion. It is about the law and the law says that the bike belongs to the OP.

And what law would that be then?

Im disappointed to see this post Derek.

Well perhaps he's a bit miffed, as I am, that you see fit to start your posts aggressively, and with ridicule.

You completely ignore the fact that the experiences posted throughout the thread indicate there is no global agreement or 'law' throughtout the force on this one.

Perhaps Julian, but it was neither aggressive nor was it ridiculing. It was certainly short, but what do you expect when you pontificate about whether lost property should ever be returned to its finder.

The post is about facts and the law/procedure as it stands, not about peoples half-arsed opinions.

With regards to law, I believe that there is case law, with the person finding the item having the second greatest claim to the property behind the owner themselves.

I posted as I did because I don't expect to see obtuse posts from DS, although I am becoming accustomed to seeing them from you.

Gave you a chance to moderate your tone, and you post back with an even more unfortunate and aggressive post?

Strange thing the internet. I appologise if I've upset you on some previous thread?

I do seem to be touchy today, sorry.

[Cat]

Rovinghawk said:

Hopefully yes, there will be a good explanation showing probity in all respects.

Who knows what will be shown? I'd sooner wait for the information to come to light rather than blindly jumping to conclusions based on prejudice and bias.

Cat

[Muncher]

I just had a call from a nice lady at the police who has asked me to email the details to their internal insurer as she said it looks like they have made a mistake and auctioned property that I had a good title to and they also want to look into the circumstances surrounding it.

[Jasandjules]

Muncher said:

I just had a call from a nice lady at the police who has asked me to email the details to their internal insurer as she said it looks like they have made a mistake and auctioned property that I had a good title to and they also want to look into the circumstances surrounding it.

Good stuff.

Please do keep us updated.

[Muncher]

The police have admitted liability and proposed sending me the amount they received from the auction (which is a lot less than the bike would have fetched anywhere else, strangely. I've therefore asked for details of the auction listing, as I still couldn't find the listing anywhere.

[Rovinghawk]

Cat said:

Rovinghawk said:

Hopefully yes, there will be a good explanation showing probity in all respects.

Who knows what will be shown? I'd sooner wait for the information to come to light rather than blindly jumping to conclusions based on prejudice and bias.

The police have sold something which they knew (or should have checked before selling) someone other than themselves had title to. They have now admitted to this.

Naughty. If it transpires that someone connected to the station was the buyer (especially if the auction had a 'restricted' clientele) then that was extremely naughty.

Even if it was all totally honest, there's a pretty bad taint to it which does nothing to engender trust.

[Slidingpillar]

As someone who is fairly experienced in auctions held by the local scout group, a low amount realised for bikes is not at all surprising. Second hand bikes rarely fetch a good price and I frequently advise folk who know what they are looking at to try the local auctions.

If you don't, go to a proper bike shop - there is a lot of rubbish out there.

[Muncher]

Well, it gets more interesting. They replied sending through a recipt from an auction house and also stated they are only obliged to pay whatever they sold it for (which they are wrong on).

However, the recipt they have sent through is for the sale of a completely different bike. It's for a 2014 model electric/mountain bike that sells new for 2,850, which only made ~580 at auction.

So they haven't even got the right bike, but the alarming thing is how little a very new, very expensive bike sold for at auction...

[Rude-boy]

Snowboy said:

Muncher said:

Snowboy said:

If it was me I'd just shrug it off.
It was never yours to begin with, you've not actually lost anything.

That's not quite how the law works.

It's how maths works.

Given you are a poster who is usually very "Sorry but tough, that is the way the law is." I do find this response odd, even if 'real world' accurate.

[paintman]

Muncher said:

Well, it gets more interesting. They replied sending through a recipt from an auction house and also stated they are only obliged to pay whatever they sold it for (which they are wrong on).

However, the recipt they have sent through is for the sale of a completely different bike. It's for a 2014 model electric/mountain bike that sells new for 2,850, which only made ~580 at auction.

So they haven't even got the right bike, but the alarming thing is how little a very new, very expensive bike sold for at auction...

Don't understand that bit. Are you saying that they have to pay you more than it went for? If you are, what law are you relying on?

Edited by paintman on Tuesday 27th May 14:49

[Slidingpillar]

Muncher said:

It's for a 2014 model electric/mountain bike that sells new for 2,850, which only made ~580 at auction.

Very specialised bike, you'd struggle to get a good price at any auction, let alone a police one.

As I said, if you know what you are looking at, there are bargains for buyers to be had.

[Muncher]

paintman said:

Don't understand that bit. Are you saying that they have to pay you more than it went for? If you are, what law are you relying on?

The price that is sold for is not the measure of loss, I don't have time to dig out the authorities.

For instance, you have control of someone else's Ferrari, and you sell it without their permission. You can't turn around to them and say "well I only got £1k for it, so there you go, I'll hand over £1k, problem solved".

[Engineer1]

Slidingpillar said:

Muncher said:

It's for a 2014 model electric/mountain bike that sells new for 2,850, which only made ~580 at auction.

Very specialised bike, you'd struggle to get a good price at any auction, let alone a police one.

As I said, if you know what you are looking at, there are bargains for buyers to be had.

An electric mountain bike is probably worth one hell of a lot less than it was originally as I bet any spares chargers etc will cost a small fortune to buy

[Snowboy]

Rude-boy said:

Snowboy said:

Muncher said:

Snowboy said:

If it was me I'd just shrug it off.
It was never yours to begin with, you've not actually lost anything.

That's not quite how the law works.

It's how maths works.

Given you are a poster who is usually very "Sorry but tough, that is the way the law is." I do find this response odd, even if 'real world' accurate.

My approach to things is generally pragmatic optimism and kindness.

If I found myself in the OP's situation I'd probably donate the money to charity anyway.
I wouldn't really want to profit from the fact some thief chose my garden to dump a nicked bike.
So if this happened to me I wouldn't be that bothered.

[Mk3Spitfire]

^^ Have to agree to some degree with SB.
At the risk of getting shouted at by the shouty people...
You have not lost anything. You've made some money which you didn't have before, realistically at someone else's expense. However much they gave you, you did nothing much for it, and now have more than you had.
Is it worth stringing it out for an extra few quid?

[Rude-boy]

Snowboy said:

My approach to things is generally pragmatic optimism and kindness.

If I found myself in the OP's situation I'd probably donate the money to charity anyway.
I wouldn't really want to profit from the fact some thief chose my garden to dump a nicked bike.
So if this happened to me I wouldn't be that bothered.

I'd likely 'donate' it to some model shop or other at the minute

[Derek Smith]

Muncher said:

Well, it gets more interesting. They replied sending through a recipt from an auction house and also stated they are only obliged to pay whatever they sold it for (which they are wrong on).

However, the recipt they have sent through is for the sale of a completely different bike. It's for a 2014 model electric/mountain bike that sells new for 2,850, which only made ~580 at auction.

So they haven't even got the right bike, but the alarming thing is how little a very new, very expensive bike sold for at auction...

As I stated earlier, this is probably, almost certainly, not found property. It is more likely to be discovered stolen property. If, as you seem to be suggesting, the bike has considerable value, then it is even more unlikely that it was 'hidden', to use your word. Even if, for some strange reason it was, then an owner is unlikely to simply forget where he put it.

I was told in my force that stolen property should not be handed back to someone who discovered it. It remains the property of the police. What the police can and cannot do with stolen property is limited by statute and regulations.

I'd suggest that you have no rights to the property as such and it is only practice that the police hand the proceeds of the auction of stolen property to the finder.

I was under the impression that income to a force from such proceeds has to be declared and is taken from the money received from the government. Mind you, nowadays, the value of a stolen bike is likely to be more than that so maybe that's why it was done.

So they are giving you money which is not theirs in any case so there is little incentive to be too accurate.

£580 for the sale of a £1000 value s/h bicycle is rather generous. But by all means, create a fuss.

[Rovinghawk]

Mk3Spitfire said:

^^ Have to agree to some degree with SB.
At the risk of getting shouted at by the shouty people...
You have not lost anything. You've made some money which you didn't have before, realistically at someone else's expense. However much they gave you, you did nothing much for it, and now have more than you had.
Is it worth stringing it out for an extra few quid?

Without being shouty:

OP put a bit of time & effort into doing the right thing, for which there was a benefit.

This benefit has gone to someone else under dubious circumstances despite the OP's interest & he's been told fibs about it.

I think there's a principle involved here.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Rovinghawk said:

I think there's a principle involved here.

Quite. And although we don't know the figures, or the finer details of who now owns the bike, the OP has had some money paid to him. He's not exactly forked out thousands in legal fees. I don't know, but given the circumstances, personally I'd be inclined to acceptwhatever he has been given, and move on with my life.