The Police and lost, lost property!

[Rovinghawk]

Derek Smith said:

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.

From earlier discussions I understand that the law says differently.

Derek Smith said:

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

Are you seriously suggesting that the police don't need to account accurately for money in/out?

[Rovinghawk]

Mk3Spitfire said:

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.

But not what he was entitled to.

Mk3Spitfire said:

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.

"Move along, nothing to see here"?

Very convenient for the police force in question, but hardly conducive to trust in the system.

[XCP]

Where does this 'entitlement' arise?

[Mk3Spitfire]

Rovinghawk said:

"Move along, nothing to see here"?
.

Not what I was saying. I was voicing a personal opinion that after 3 months, I would probably accept that whatever I'd been awarded was more than I had before some poor person had their bike stolen and dumped in my garden. I'd move on with my life, and not spend my time scouring the internet to see if I could squeeze a few more quid out of the system. Id take a punt that whatever he's been given is enough for a pint....so by now, I would be drinking my free beer with a smile on my face. IMHO.

[Rovinghawk]

XCP said:

Where does this 'entitlement' arise?

proof of its existence is the willingness of the police to donate the sale proceeds.

[Rovinghawk]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Not what I was saying. I was voicing a personal opinion ....etc

Accepting that, can you see how it might appear?

OP stated an interest & told he could have it after a period of time. Auction that nobody can trace (certainly not on the 'main' police auction site). A few fibs en route.

You/others (also police) saying 'let it lie'.

There is great potential to interpret events in a cynical manner and very little to excuse them.

[Mk3Spitfire]

I'm not saying let it lie. I'm saying I would let it lie.
You're welcome to your conspiracy theories about the police and their involvement in bike auctions. Maybe they are in the wrong. Maybe it was an admin error. Maybe someone didn't have PH to fall back on to find out who was entitled to what. I don't know, and neither do you.

[XCP]

Rovinghawk said:

proof of its existence is the willingness of the police to donate the sale proceeds.

Not what I asked. You claim he has an entitlement ( in law presumably). Can you show us where that arises, because I am unaware of how it arises at this stage of the proceedings.

[Rovinghawk]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Maybe they are in the wrong. Maybe it was an admin error. Maybe someone didn't have PH to fall back on to find out who was entitled to what. I don't know, and neither do you.

I know that it potentially looks dodgy & they should pull out all the stops to ensure that they are seen to be honest.

This does not seem to be happening- can we agree on that?

[Mk3Spitfire]

Rovinghawk said:

This does not seem to be happening- can we agree on that?

From the info we have so far, yes.

I imagine this sort of thing doesn't happen all that often, and whoever is in charge of disposing of the found properly is unsure of what the score is.

[Rovinghawk]

XCP said:

Not what I asked. You claim he has an entitlement ( in law presumably). Can you show us where that arises, because I am unaware of how it arises at this stage of the proceedings.

Zeeky said:

The classic case is at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1722/J94.ht...

Parker v British Airways Board contains a good analysis of the later authorities.

General rule is that a non-trespassing finder of property has better title to it than everyone other than the true owner. The finder is obliged to take reasonable steps to re-acquaint the true owner with the property.

This applies to abandoned or lost property.

Therefore it was his to dispose as he saw fit, not the police.

If they sold his property they are liable for the cost of an equivalent replacement, regardless of getting a lesser price elsewhere.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Tuesday 27th May 17:02

[Rovinghawk]

Mk3Spitfire said:

I imagine this sort of thing doesn't happen all that often, and whoever is in charge of disposing of the found properly is unsure of what the score is.

If that's the case then from the information available that person doesn't appear to have bothered to ascertain the correct procedure for doing so.
It's still less than ideal.

[XCP]

Rovinghawk said:

herefore it was his to dispose as he saw fit, not the police.

If they sold his property they are liable for the cost of an equivalent replacement, regardless of getting a lesser price elsewhere.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Tuesday 27th May 17:02

Sorry, I think you have misunderstood. Either that or I have. Why do you think he is entitled to more than the market value of the property ie what it was sold for? ( less commission etc)

[Derek Smith]

Zeeky said:

The classic case is at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1722/J94.ht...

Parker v British Airways Board contains a good analysis of the later authorities.

General rule is that a non-trespassing finder of property has better title to it than everyone other than the true owner. The finder is obliged to take reasonable steps to re-acquaint the true owner with the property.

This applies to abandoned or lost property.

I would suggest, though, that this is unlikely to be lost/abandoned property.

[Cat]

Rovinghawk said:

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.

There is still no evidence of any dishonesty or impropriety regarding the disposal of the property yet you continue to imply that it exists. Why?

A mistake has been made and this has been admitted, compensation has been offered to the OP (Doesn't really fit with your default position that the Police close ranks and refuse to admit when they get things wrong does it?)

Cat

[Muncher]

Derek Smith said:

I would suggest, though, that this is unlikely to be lost/abandoned property.

It doesn't need to be though Derek, the holder of the property simply has better title to it unless it can be shown to belong to an identifiable other person.

[Derek Smith]

Muncher said:

Derek Smith said:

I would suggest, though, that this is unlikely to be lost/abandoned property.

It doesn't need to be though Derek, the holder of the property simply has better title to it unless it can be shown to belong to an identifiable other person.

I'm not sure that is correct.

The property might be abandoned. Therefore it has no owner. Therefore the finder has a right to it. If it is found on private land then the person with such rights has a lien on it. But it might not necessarily belong to, for instance, a leasholder or someone renting the land. These things are complex and many a lawyer has milked the involved nature of such legal niceties. The police are often 'piggy in the middle' as they have possession but no rights and once two people inform the police of their claim, or there is one claimant and the police have knowledge of someone who might have a claim but they are unavailable, then the police end up being sued in effect.

The property might have been lost. The person who finds such property has a limited claim on the property as it still belongs to the loser. However, the law, the Theft Act in particular, allows the finder to assume certain rights to the property although, of course, the actual owner might then turn up and will have a claim on it. Here again the police might well have inadvertently come into possession of such items and then has to perform a role which they have no real reason to perform.

The finder does not always have to take reasonable steps to discover the owner of lost property.

Then we come to stolen property that comes into the possession of the police. The route is immaterial. Now I was told that the police then assumes control over said property until such times as it no longer requires such property and then can dispose of it as it thinks best. So a man might well be stabbed with a knife but the police can keep said knife if it wishes as it is evidence. Once the case is over, the items might well be retained, in case of an appeal, etc, but the norm is that if it can be got rid of, it will.

Some police forces had museums, which they allowed, indeed encouraged, students to use as a study resource. The items in it were kept because they belonged to the police under the various evidence acts. I know that some offenders have demanded their property should be returned to them and this has, in one case I know about and I have been told in others as well, refused.

There are any number of evidence acts and I would assume that, as I was taught this in the middle 80s, things might well have changed. However, I would assume I would have heard about it until around 2003.

The reason the police put items seized as evidence which have claimants outstanding through an auction is convenience and cost. Any money the police receive through such auctions has to be 'declared' as extra income and so it is taken from what now is the petty cash the government allows them. In other words, the police cannot profit from such auctions although they can claim the costs.

Therefore if they come into possession of an item that is sold at auction for, say, £1000 they can claim back the auctioneers' fees, handling/storage costs (which I believe are fixed for certain items) and then the balance is removed from their grant the following year (so they get a little bit of interest). If the original owner then comes forward and claims said item the police point out that legally they could dispose of it and did so, and it came to £1000 (an item has a value of what it can bring, and an auction is an easy way of showing what it would bring) which they will return to the owner. Oh, by the way, less the £150 auctioneers' fee and the £50 handling/storage charge. All plus VAT, so here's your £775.

The £775 is then put on the debit side of next year's returns to the government so the police lose nothing. In fact they gain 'use' of the money for over some time if they've worked it out well.

Now if that item worth £1000 is given back to the finder then when the owner returns he will not have a claim against the police, as I understand it, but practice is that the police will pay the money to the owner. That's £1000. Whether this can be reclaimed I don't know. I would assume so but there would be a delay, one of around 2 years or more.

So a valuable item that has been hidden and yet has no claimant is likely, I would suggest, to be stolen property. In my understanding of the law, the police have to assume certain rights over it. These would be superior to the rights of the person who discovered said item.

Although the analogy does not run, think of it as gold jewelry dating from the 8thC a farmer finds in his field. He has certain rights to it but also has certain obligations. I certain circs the items can be taken from him against his will despite them being found on his land. In particular, if they were buried with the intent to return at a later date, or ownership was transferred, then someone has to make a decision as to whether, and to what amount, of right the finder has to it.

[Derek Smith]

Cat said:

There is still no evidence of any dishonesty or impropriety regarding the disposal of the property yet you continue to imply that it exists. Why?

A mistake has been made and this has been admitted, compensation has been offered to the OP (Doesn't really fit with your default position that the Police close ranks and refuse to admit when they get things wrong does it?)

Cat

Rearrange into a well-known saying:

You are wasting time your.

[Rovinghawk]

XCP said:

Sorry, I think you have misunderstood. Either that or I have. Why do you think he is entitled to more than the market value of the property ie what it was sold for? ( less commission etc)

He is entitled to be put back into the position he would have been in had the wrongful actions not taken place.

He is entitled to the full replacement cost of a similar bicycle, second hand if possible but new if necessary. This is believed to be greater than the value realised in the auction.

[Rovinghawk]

Cat said:

There is still no evidence of any dishonesty or impropriety regarding the disposal of the property yet you continue to imply that it exists. Why?

Statements were made which were subsequently found to be other than the truth. The records at the usual auction outlet show no trace of the sale. The OP was not notified of the auction. Hardly best practice. How do you explain away these points?

Cat said:

A mistake has been made and this has been admitted, compensation has been offered to the OP (Doesn't really fit with your default position that the Police close ranks and refuse to admit when they get things wrong does it?)

A mistake was uncovered when the OP pushed for it. Insufficient compensation was offered, complete with untruth as to the amount liable.

The identity of the purchaser might be fascinating- it'll never come to light whether or not he was connected to the local station.

The problem is that you can't see the problem. The whole thing smells.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Tuesday 27th May 20:38