Civil matter vs theft
Discussion
Somewhat related to the RAC lost my Zafira thread, let's assume it was true. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Case 1 - guy hands the car over to RAC, they lose it and tell him to report it as stolen, police says it's a civil matter between you and RAC
EDIT for those who haven't read the thread I refer to (I admit original post was confusing if you haven't read it) - the story in the Zafira thread was that RAC were looking for the car and then told him to report it to the police as stolen, he did but they told him that it's not theft but civil matter.
Case 2 - guy has a rental from RAC that he doesn't want to give back until RAC find his car, RAC threatens to report the car as stolen (presumably confident that police will agree and recover it).
Both cases are between RAC and an individual. RAC has a big legal team, individual not so much.
So, how does police classify what's theft and what's a civil matter? Is it mainly based on the size of bank accounts?
Case 1 - guy hands the car over to RAC, they lose it and tell him to report it as stolen, police says it's a civil matter between you and RAC
EDIT for those who haven't read the thread I refer to (I admit original post was confusing if you haven't read it) - the story in the Zafira thread was that RAC were looking for the car and then told him to report it to the police as stolen, he did but they told him that it's not theft but civil matter.
Case 2 - guy has a rental from RAC that he doesn't want to give back until RAC find his car, RAC threatens to report the car as stolen (presumably confident that police will agree and recover it).
Both cases are between RAC and an individual. RAC has a big legal team, individual not so much.
So, how does police classify what's theft and what's a civil matter? Is it mainly based on the size of bank accounts?
Edited by 8V085 on Thursday 4th January 23:03
randlemarcus said:
I strongly suspect it's mostly down to the nice civvie on the front desk. If you look like you can be made to go away without incrementing the things people have to investigate, then it's a civil matter 
That's what I suspect also, but does that make it right?dazwalsh said:
i would use the fact that keys were willingly handed over for the car, therefore not theft.
This applies to both cases though.vonhosen said:
Theft
Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it.
Does it satisfy that definition?
Many years ago a guy scammed me out of a car. He gave me a cheque and I released the car when the money appeared in my account. The cheque then bounced and the money was taken back out of my account. He then avoided all further contact and tried to cover his tracks.Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it.
Does it satisfy that definition?
He clearly had no intention of paying and obviously intended to permanently deprive me of it.
The police told me that it was a civil matter, not fraud/theft. I didn't get the car back, or my money.
98elise said:
vonhosen said:
Theft
Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it.
Does it satisfy that definition?
Many years ago a guy scammed me out of a car. He gave me a cheque and I released the car when the money appeared in my account. The cheque then bounced and the money was taken back out of my account. He then avoided all further contact and tried to cover his tracks.Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it.
Does it satisfy that definition?
He clearly had no intention of paying and obviously intended to permanently deprive me of it.
The police told me that it was a civil matter, not fraud/theft. I didn't get the car back, or my money.
vonhosen said:
Theft
Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it.
Does it satisfy that definition?
Sounded to me like the chap in question was looking to hold onto the courtesy car until the matter was resolved, therefore imo there was no intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property.Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it.
Does it satisfy that definition?
Would've thought this was a civil matter.
8V085 said:
98elise said:
vonhosen said:
Theft
Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it.
Does it satisfy that definition?
Many years ago a guy scammed me out of a car. He gave me a cheque and I released the car when the money appeared in my account. The cheque then bounced and the money was taken back out of my account. He then avoided all further contact and tried to cover his tracks.Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it.
Does it satisfy that definition?
He clearly had no intention of paying and obviously intended to permanently deprive me of it.
The police told me that it was a civil matter, not fraud/theft. I didn't get the car back, or my money.
randlemarcus said:
8V085 said:
98elise said:
vonhosen said:
Theft
Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it.
Does it satisfy that definition?
Many years ago a guy scammed me out of a car. He gave me a cheque and I released the car when the money appeared in my account. The cheque then bounced and the money was taken back out of my account. He then avoided all further contact and tried to cover his tracks.Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it.
Does it satisfy that definition?
He clearly had no intention of paying and obviously intended to permanently deprive me of it.
The police told me that it was a civil matter, not fraud/theft. I didn't get the car back, or my money.
First one- isn’t theft as the vehicle has been lost. There was no dishonest appropriation because the car was handed over, by the owner, willingly.
The fact that is has subsequently gone adrift is neither here nor there and no idea why the RAC would suggest the owner reports as stolen to the police, unless they have some more info they aren’t sharing.
Second one- bit more complex. The minute the owner asks for the vehicle back it could be argued the element of dishonest appropriation is made out (as the person in possession is no longer entitled to have use of the car and knows it is to be returned), and the property belongs to another. It would all boil down to proving the intent of the person in possession; if they were retaining it for a period whilst their own vehicle was sorted this wouldn’t meet the criteria for “permanently deprive”.
The fact that is has subsequently gone adrift is neither here nor there and no idea why the RAC would suggest the owner reports as stolen to the police, unless they have some more info they aren’t sharing.
Second one- bit more complex. The minute the owner asks for the vehicle back it could be argued the element of dishonest appropriation is made out (as the person in possession is no longer entitled to have use of the car and knows it is to be returned), and the property belongs to another. It would all boil down to proving the intent of the person in possession; if they were retaining it for a period whilst their own vehicle was sorted this wouldn’t meet the criteria for “permanently deprive”.
randlemarcus said:
I strongly suspect it's mostly down to the nice civvie on the front desk.
The police service in Britain is staffed entirely by civilians.We have a civilian police service.
To say that there is a 'civvie' on the front desk is inappropriate because they are all civilians. In uniform or out of uniform.
8V085 said:
La Liga said:
First one isn’t theft.
Second one could be but could be a civil / contractual matter.
Nothing to do with who has the biggest bank account best lawyers.
Thanks for an in-depth explanation.Second one could be but could be a civil / contractual matter.
Nothing to do with who has the biggest bank account best lawyers.
With the first one losing something isn’t dishonest so it’s a non-starter.
The second is more complicated. It’s property belonging to another. You’ve appropriated it. The questions are whether it’s dishonest and whether your intention is to permanetly deprive them of it. The latter can be achieved through assuming the rights of ownership but may be a major sticking point given case law, time of appropriation etc. The former would depend on whether keeping the car amounts to dishonestly. Would a reasonable person see it as dishonest? That is the test.
More detail would be needed, but the contract you entered would probably include what would happen if they lost / damaged the car. It probably isn’t, ‘keep our hire car as leverage’.
Depending on how the RAC want to proceed and the contract, they could pursue it through civil means. The police would prefer so as they have better things to do than sort out a squabble between customer and business. However, there probably would be reasonable suspicion to suspect theft. Whether it’d result in a charge is another matter.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 4th January 22:28
La Liga said:
8V085 said:
La Liga said:
First one isn’t theft.
Second one could be but could be a civil / contractual matter.
Nothing to do with who has the biggest bank account best lawyers.
Thanks for an in-depth explanation.Second one could be but could be a civil / contractual matter.
Nothing to do with who has the biggest bank account best lawyers.
With the first one losing something isn’t dishonest so it’s a non-starter.
vonhosen said:
Theft
Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it.
Does it satisfy that definition?
Does TWOC still exist for cars? No idea if a car that was hired to someone could be converted into one that had been TWOC'd but it's apparently standard practice to report un-returned hire and courtesy cars as stolen.Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive them of it.
Does it satisfy that definition?
I suppose in any case the car could be considered to be uninsured for the hirer so is a police matter if it's driven.
Edited by Sheepshanks on Thursday 4th January 22:52
8V085 said:
La Liga said:
8V085 said:
La Liga said:
First one isn’t theft.
Second one could be but could be a civil / contractual matter.
Nothing to do with who has the biggest bank account best lawyers.
Thanks for an in-depth explanation.Second one could be but could be a civil / contractual matter.
Nothing to do with who has the biggest bank account best lawyers.
With the first one losing something isn’t dishonest so it’s a non-starter.
First the RAC lost it, now it's 'presumably stolen' before they picked it up.
Make your mind up.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff