Theft of goods from car in driveway

[97lude]

desolate said:

You have openly admitted that its business stock, fella.

Claiming on your home insurance in these circumstances is fraud, pure and simple. Loads of people do it and the chances of you getting a record because of it are minimal - so crack on.

But don't get all precious about it - I have tried to explain how best to get away with it - what more do you want?

If it isn't fraud - what is it?

Stock was the wrong word 'fella', I'm sure I acknowledged that in one of my previous posts and admitted it could have been misconstrued. Collection would have been a more suitable term. I wasn't asking for advice on how to "get away with it" as I had already reported the event to both my home insurance company and the police, I was seeking reassurance on the stance of the insurer given the unusual circumstances. I sincerely hope my explanation puts your mind at rest.

[OldGermanHeaps]

Collecting trainers does not make you a pastry locking device, tax evasion and insurance fraud does though.
But its only beer money, so maybe just jakey?

[anonymous-user]

“Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”



In your now deleted OP you stated you were doing it to subsidise your hobby. So trading to subsidise your collection. Trading.


Will leave you to it.

[97lude]

desolate said:

“Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”



In your now deleted OP you stated you were doing it to subsidise your hobby. So trading to subsidise your collection. Trading.


Will leave you to it.

Give it a break! Surely the time you've spent posting on this particular thread could have been put to better use than trying to prove a non existent point to a stranger on the internet.

[anonymous-user]

97lude said:

Give it a break! Surely the time you've spent posting on this particular thread could have been put to better use than trying to prove a non existent point to a stranger on the internet.

Not really. I have been ill today and the cricket has been boring.

Anyway I like Norman Walsh trainers - are they collectable?

[dacouch]

desolate said:

Anyway you are committed to the fraud now. I think Direct Line has stopped using Voice Risk Analysis software so if you keep to the story you may be ok. Providing they don't mind that the vehicle was unlocked. And that they are young enough to understand that trainers are appreciating assets so that is why you had so many in the unlocked boot of your car.

Edited by desolate on Tuesday 17th November 11:30

Edited by desolate on Tuesday 17th November 11:32

I would expect they're the same as the majority of Insurers who use staff trained in "cognitive interview" techniques which is basically a human lie detector.

If this claim is actually covered by the policy (I suspect not) then it's very likely to flag up as needing further investigation eg scrutiny of the receipts and a cognitive interview. If they suspect there's anything amiss with the receipts / ownership then I would not be surprised if they request bank / credit card statements to see if these confirm the payment leaving the OP's account to match up with the receipt.

[Du1point8]

Looking over this...

If you are selling them to make pocket money it is classed as a business, nothing you can do to escape that.

Even if you can claim them on household insurance, thats a big if as I doubt you would get any money as its not a business insurance and car insurance will not cover leaving stock in an vehicle unless you pay a premium for business and tell them.

You will only get trade value for everything, there is no "oh it would sell at £200 and I paid £20 so I want £200", you get the basics for it... I have claimed lots of times on trade insurance (usually DHL screw up) when they have had an accident with my stock and it is painful when 1/4 of my stock is covered in paint through no fault of my own and I get paid what I paid for it, yet I had to cover insurance and transport to get it into the country.

Then Im down 1/4 stock I brought in the country to cover the rest of the year and need more.

[V8LM]

Selling to make a profit, no matter how small, or to make a loss, no matter how big, is trading. OP, if you're making a loss you might be able to get some tax relief. Have a word with HMRC - https://www.gov.uk/contact-hmrc

[JustinP1]

97lude:

Giving a serious answer here, it matters not whether posters on here take you as your word for selling your shoes, and/or whether they class this as a business, and/or whether they think you are stuffed.

What matters is what your insurance company believes. The problem you have is that you need to convince your insurance company that you keep 23 pairs of new, presumably boxed trainers in your boot overnight - and these are all your own personal new, boxed trainers, and none of these were ever destined for sale.

As you've said, the only reason that they were in the car in the first place was that you took them somewhere to be swapped/sold.

That's the difficulty you have, on top of the fact that I'm reasonably certain that you will be offered a figure less than you perhaps expect.

[OldGermanHeaps]

I was gonna lock my boot, but then i got high.
Now i've a cold foot, and i know why.
Because i got high
Because i got high
Because i got high

[V8LM]

97lude said:

Would it have been a different story had my watch been stolen from my car, or my wallet? The point is something belonging to me, which I paid for with my hard earned money, which I can justify they weren't all to sell on, has been taken from my car.

If it had been your watch that was taken, then yes. Maybe. Had it been one of 22 watches that for the reasons you give were in the boot, then no. If it were your wallet, then yes. Maybe. If it were 22 wallets in your boot that were there for some to keep and some to sell, then no.

The

97lude said:

which I can justify they weren't all to sell on

implies that some were to sell on. This is trading.

Now, whether your insurance company thinks so with the information you care to give them is a different matter. The suggestion and accusation of fraud is real if you answer questions posed by the insurers as you have here.

[anonymous-user]

97lude said:

Prizam said:

97lude said:

Drumroll said:

So why keep them in your car?

Went to a friends house on Saturday where a group of us got together, bought our trainers along and exchanged / traded with each other, didn't get a chance to bring them back inside, your honour.

You have got to be kidding right?

For some one who "set up a limited company with a turnover of approx £25-£30k pa" you sure do come across as a member of the traveller community.

You come across as a .

In all honesty, you come across as a non too smart tax evader. Insulting people on here who are clearly smarter than you doesn't do anything to help.

I'd wish you good luck but I would be lying........

[Roo]

97lude said:

I'm meticulous when it comes to locking my car. The same thing happened to my neighbour 6 months ago and a friend had his Merc stolen last year, both while the keys were in their possession so have you ever thought that this type of crime may exist? Maybe due your old age you're oblivious to the technological advances that have occurred in the last couple of decades.

Bit careless leaving all your business stock in the boot then if you know it's a common problem.

[SydneyBridge]

and why would you leave your passport and items from your other hobby in the car s well?

what sort of car is it?

[PorkInsider]

97lude said:

Stock was the wrong word 'fella', I'm sure I acknowledged that in one of my previous posts and admitted it could have been misconstrued.

It would be an easy mistake to make, given that you referred to £800 worth of stock to get started with your business.

You may have deleted that post but that doesn't change the facts.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

desolate said:

If it isn't fraud - what is it?

Obtaining money by deception. Euphemisms matter.

[Sushifiend]

V8LM said:

implies that some were to sell on. This is trading.

If the OP bought 23 pairs of trainers with the intention of using them to swap for other trainers for his personal collection, then I don't see how that could be considered "trading" in the "running a business" sense of the word.

Kids used to do this all the time with stinky stickers, pokemon cards, baseball cards, basically anything which had a limited run which could cause some variants to become rarely available. I'm pretty certain those kids weren't engaged in running a business, because their motive was the completion of their collection and not financial gain.

What if the OP told his friends that he could get a load of "Super-wazzy hoverball trainers" which normally go for £150 a pair for only £50 a pair but he had to buy 10 pairs to get that price. If 10 of his friends each say, "Okay, I'm in" and he buys the trainers to share amongst his friends who each reimburse him the £50, then that's not trading or running a business either. If he bought 3 additional pairs to keep for himself, then he's still not "trading". So it's quite reasonable that he could have 23 pairs of trainers in the back of his car, despite my personal feeling that owning more than a single pair of trainers is already a bit strange.

For me the only problematic part for the OP is using the word "stock". If he'd used the word "collection", then we might think of him as a bit, you know - odd, but at least nobody would be accusing him of fraud. He hasn't helped his cause by admitting to also keeping drugs in the car or openly using the word "fella" though...

[V8LM]

Sushifiend said:

V8LM said:

implies that some were to sell on. This is trading.

If the OP bought 23 pairs of trainers with the intention of using them to swap for other trainers for his personal collection, then I don't see how that could be considered "trading" in the "running a business" sense of the word.

Kids used to do this all the time with stinky stickers, pokemon cards, baseball cards, basically anything which had a limited run which could cause some variants to become rarely available. I'm pretty certain those kids weren't engaged in running a business, because their motive was the completion of their collection and not financial gain.

What if the OP told his friends that he could get a load of "Super-wazzy hoverball trainers" which normally go for £150 a pair for only £50 a pair but he had to buy 10 pairs to get that price. If 10 of his friends each say, "Okay, I'm in" and he buys the trainers to share amongst his friends who each reimburse him the £50, then that's not trading or running a business either. If he bought 3 additional pairs to keep for himself, then he's still not "trading". So it's quite reasonable that he could have 23 pairs of trainers in the back of his car, despite my personal feeling that owning more than a single pair of trainers is already a bit strange.

For me the only problematic part for the OP is using the word "stock". If he'd used the word "collection", then we might think of him as a bit, you know - odd, but at least nobody would be accusing him of fraud. He hasn't helped his cause by admitting to also keeping drugs in the car or openly using the word "fella" though...

OP said:

Hi,

To cut a long story short, last night someone broke into my car without using forced entry, spent a few minutes having a look inside and then proceeded to empty my boot of 23 pairs of trainers! Our CCTV isn't very clear but you can see the lights of the car turn on at approx 3am and someone inside the car with a torch having a rummage around and then opening the boot, clearing out the items and then driving off. The CCTV isn't very clear, you can't make out the the face or see their getaway car but you can definitely tell that there's someone in the car.

I have filed a claim with my home insurance company and have sent them paperwork and invoices for all the trainers (they are completely legit before any questions), I only started buying and selling on eBay a couple of weeks ago. My problem is would they consider this to be business use and invalidate my claim? I can't really afford to lose £800 worth of stock having just started, it's most of my investment gone out of the window! I wasn't doing it to make serious money, only making around £10-£15 on the side to subsidise the cost of my trainer purchases. Would Direct Line still consider this to be business use, or can i argue it's a genuine hobby as I do enjoy collecting trainers and I'm not really doing it as a proper business? I have obtained a crime ref number from the police who said they can't really do much without clear footage and now the claim is currently with the insurance assessor.

Any advice appreciated.

Thanks

Looks like trading to me.

[JustinP1]

Sushifiend said:

For me the only problematic part for the OP is using the word "stock". If he'd used the word "collection", then we might think of him as a bit, you know - odd, but at least nobody would be accusing him of fraud.

I would suggest that on the balance of probabilities that he used the word 'stock' because he meant to, because that's how he refers to his stock. And, if those trainers weren't 'stock', he wouldn't have used the word 'stock', and he would have just said 'my trainers'.

[johnfm]

The OP set out in his opening post that he buys & sells trainers. Whether he makes £10/week or £1,000/week or a loss it is a trade.

Simple really.