Been sold some lies and dreams
Discussion
Escy said:
There has. I asked him for £500 back or I'd go to the police. He agreed but it took ages, finally had the last of it yesterday. £500 means i'll break even on the car. I have sold the engine for £750 (previously sold it for £2250 as the lie spec) so i've effectively lost £1500 (£1000 after his £500 back). I think i cut him a good deal really as i'd over paid for the car by more than £500 but if i'd tried him for more money i'd have probably got nothing. It turns out there is a long list of people who've been ripped off by him so anything back is a result.
I'm going to chalk it up to experience and move on.
You've lost 500 at most, no?I'm going to chalk it up to experience and move on.
-1750 for the car
+750 for the engine
+500 from scammer
= 500 to recover from the rest of the car.
pork911 said:
JustinP1 said:
pork911 said:
blackmail then.
Morally maybe, but not legally.Given the background of the situation, he was not looking to gain for himself, nor cause a loss to another, and his demand was warranted.
If he was asking for £5000 mind you, then that would be unwarranted.
kev b said:
I am assuming no receipt was given for the £500, as a previous poster says you cannot blackmail an innocent man.
It can and does happen.An example might be that you get a local tradesman to do some work for you, you tell him the cheque would be in the post.
You don't pay him despite there being no good reason to not pay him, tell him that he will not get paid, and say that should he contact you again that you would write negative reviews of him all over the internet.
JustinP1 said:
Put simply, it doesn't meet the stipulations of s21 of the Theft Act.
Given the background of the situation, he was not looking to gain for himself, nor cause a loss to another, and his demand was warranted.
If he was asking for £5000 mind you, then that would be unwarranted.
it entirely meets the criteriaGiven the background of the situation, he was not looking to gain for himself, nor cause a loss to another, and his demand was warranted.
If he was asking for £5000 mind you, then that would be unwarranted.
pork911 said:
JustinP1 said:
Put simply, it doesn't meet the stipulations of s21 of the Theft Act.
Given the background of the situation, he was not looking to gain for himself, nor cause a loss to another, and his demand was warranted.
If he was asking for £5000 mind you, then that would be unwarranted.
it entirely meets the criteriaGiven the background of the situation, he was not looking to gain for himself, nor cause a loss to another, and his demand was warranted.
If he was asking for £5000 mind you, then that would be unwarranted.
He doesn't know this, as his demand for the return of money was entirely warranted in the circumstances.
JustinP1 said:
No it doesn't. At all. Blackmail is a criminal act. It must be proven that the blackmailer knew that his demand was with menaces, and unwarranted.
He doesn't know this, as his demand for the return of money was entirely warranted in the circumstances.
your reading of it all is quite strange, have you somehow gained great expertise on the intricacies of the offence since starting a thread about it in november?He doesn't know this, as his demand for the return of money was entirely warranted in the circumstances.
pork911 said:
JustinP1 said:
No it doesn't. At all. Blackmail is a criminal act. It must be proven that the blackmailer knew that his demand was with menaces, and unwarranted.
He doesn't know this, as his demand for the return of money was entirely warranted in the circumstances.
your reading of it all is quite strange, have you somehow gained great expertise on the intricacies of the offence since starting a thread about it in november?He doesn't know this, as his demand for the return of money was entirely warranted in the circumstances.
I do note that you've not explained which actions of the OP you have interpreted to constitute a criminal act. You've accused the OP - that's a bold statement - you should back it up.
Instead of starting an attack on me, if you genuinely think he's committed a criminal act, then shouldn't you be explaining why and helping him?
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 4th March 13:26
JustinP1 said:
pork911 said:
JustinP1 said:
No it doesn't. At all. Blackmail is a criminal act. It must be proven that the blackmailer knew that his demand was with menaces, and unwarranted.
He doesn't know this, as his demand for the return of money was entirely warranted in the circumstances.
your reading of it all is quite strange, have you somehow gained great expertise on the intricacies of the offence since starting a thread about it in november?He doesn't know this, as his demand for the return of money was entirely warranted in the circumstances.
I do note that you've not explained which actions of the OP you have interpreted to constitute a criminal act. You've accused the OP - that's a bold statement - you should back it up.
Instead of starting an attack on me, if you genuinely think he's committed a criminal act, then shouldn't you be explaining why and helping him?
JustinP1 said:
It's not intricate, it's pretty basic.
I do note that you've not explained which actions of the OP you have interpreted to constitute a criminal act. You've accused the OP - that's a bold statement - you should back it up.
Instead of starting an attack on me, if you genuinely think he's committed a criminal act, then shouldn't you be explaining why and helping him?
a demand for money backed with a threat of going to the police, over a car his brother bought I do note that you've not explained which actions of the OP you have interpreted to constitute a criminal act. You've accused the OP - that's a bold statement - you should back it up.
Instead of starting an attack on me, if you genuinely think he's committed a criminal act, then shouldn't you be explaining why and helping him?
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 4th March 13:26
OP is unconcerned, it was you who said it was legal and its your misinterpretation of blackmail and the circumstances I'm interested in
pork911 said:
a demand for money backed with a threat of going to the police, over a car his brother bought
OP is unconcerned, it was you who said it was legal and its your misinterpretation of blackmail and the circumstances I'm interested in
The OP said:OP is unconcerned, it was you who said it was legal and its your misinterpretation of blackmail and the circumstances I'm interested in
Escy said:
I bought a car in July 2014 on ebay. My brother picked it up for me and ran it for 6 months.
When confronted, the seller admitted that they had made a fraudulent misrepresentation in selling the car.The OP could have taking civil action for the fraudulent misrepresentation, or he could have approached the police to see if they would run with it as a criminal matter. However, he is under no obligation to do either. Instead, the OP came to settlement with the seller and was given a refund that monies that he paid due to the fraud.
The demand for monies is warranted, and was admitted to be so by the seller. Blackmail would require not only the demand to be unwarranted, but also for the OP to know that his demand is unwarranted.
If you take that out of the equation, consider this scenario:
I wake up tomorrow morning to find a scrote rinding my pushbike off my drive, down the road. I shout: "If you don't bring that back in ten seconds, I'm calling the police to have you done for theft!".
Is that blackmail?
JustinP1 said:
pork911 said:
a demand for money backed with a threat of going to the police, over a car his brother bought
OP is unconcerned, it was you who said it was legal and its your misinterpretation of blackmail and the circumstances I'm interested in
The OP said:OP is unconcerned, it was you who said it was legal and its your misinterpretation of blackmail and the circumstances I'm interested in
Escy said:
I bought a car in July 2014 on ebay. My brother picked it up for me and ran it for 6 months.
When confronted, the seller admitted that they had made a fraudulent misrepresentation in selling the car.The OP could have taking civil action for the fraudulent misrepresentation, or he could have approached the police to see if they would run with it as a criminal matter. However, he is under no obligation to do either. Instead, the OP came to settlement with the seller and was given a refund that monies that he paid due to the fraud.
The demand for monies is warranted, and was admitted to be so by the seller. Blackmail would require not only the demand to be unwarranted, but also for the OP to know that his demand is unwarranted.
If you take that out of the equation, consider this scenario:
I wake up tomorrow morning to find a scrote rinding my pushbike off my drive, down the road. I shout: "If you don't bring that back in ten seconds, I'm calling the police to have you done for theft!".
Is that blackmail?
regardless you are still confused on blackmail itself given your example, presumably hoping it is somehow analogous (it isn't)
you spout a lot, what exactly is your experience of the prosecution of blackmail?
amusingduck said:
You've lost 500 at most, no?
-1750 for the car
+750 for the engine
+500 from scammer
= 500 to recover from the rest of the car.
I guess it depends on which way you look at it. I've sold a £2250 engine and then had to re-sell it at £750. That's how i'd have been making a court claim. The advert for the car was basically an engine advert with the car tagged on. http://www.swapz.co.uk/swapz/4629597/Toyota_Celica...-1750 for the car
+750 for the engine
+500 from scammer
= 500 to recover from the rest of the car.
It doesn't matter anymore now. I'm not going to screw the scammer for more money or grass him up, I asked him for £500 back which he gave me.
Pork911, you seem to have changed your tune on the whole blackmail thing. I used "leverage of threatening to go to the police"
pork911 said:
blackmail aside the leverage of threatening to go to the police seems his only realistic option (this far down the line)
pork911 said:
the OP said a lot of things which from this thread you'll see don't add up to him being the buyer from that seller and there were multiple technical let alone practical difficulties before him had he wanted to take civil action
regardless you are still confused on blackmail itself given your example, presumably hoping it is somehow analogous (it isn't)
you spout a lot, what exactly is your experience of the prosecution of blackmail?
We're getting nowhere in this discussion as you're avoiding answering questions about your assertions about the OP acting criminally with questions about me personally.regardless you are still confused on blackmail itself given your example, presumably hoping it is somehow analogous (it isn't)
you spout a lot, what exactly is your experience of the prosecution of blackmail?
You're the one who has made the assertion that the OP's actions are blackmail. I think if that assertion was taken to the police they would laugh, with respect.
What's your experience with blackmail prosecutions?
Escy said:
Pork911, you seem to have changed your tune on the whole blackmail thing. I used "leverage of threatening to go to the police"
it wasn't advice and it being blackmail was flagged pork911 said:
blackmail aside the leverage of threatening to go to the police seems his only realistic option (this far down the line)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff