Should I sue the Police? (New Zealand)
Discussion
A bizarre New Zealand story, which has come to a conclusion if I decide not to sue the police…
So should I?
The story.
As part of an underfloor heating system I installed two hot water heat pumps for a customer, invoiced for £5000. All e mails and the order etc etc were with the customer.
This was the third and final stage of a complete system, the customer said we should send all invoices to his building company – the first two were sent and paid.
Soon after the third invoice was sent, the building company went into liquidation.
So we took the customer to the small claims court for payment (as he refused to pay).
He claimed to have paid the building company (which in New Zealand law could give him title), but provided no evidence. Anyway, the referee decided I had a contract with the building company, therefore customer didn’t have to pay – but no finding was determined as to ownership.
As far as I was concerned the heat pumps still belonged to me, so I arranged with a couple of contractors to repossess them.
I called the police and requested their presence at the property at 9am one morning.
At 9am the police weren’t there, so the contractors nipped over the back fence (I am trespassed from the property), removed them both in 10 minutes and passed them over the fence and put them on the back of my pick up.
Customer was very pissed off, and called the police. He also stood in front of vehicles trying to stop us driving away.
200 metres from his house I saw the police coming up the road, so I stopped and waved them down – this allowed the contractors to drive off.
A discussion with the police ensued. Pissed off customer provided the small claims documents – after reading this the female cop said to me “you lost”. I agreed we lost, therefore I was collecting my units as customer didn’t have to pay us. “right” she said “put them back or be arrested”.
As I didn’t put them back (no tools or equipment, and I was trespassed), I was arrested for theft.
After being processed and bailed (but not interviewed), I got back to the pick up a couple of hours later, of course the heat pumps were missing.
The matter took nearly a year to get to court, during which time I engaged a solicitor for £2500, and the police (who do their own prosecuting here in NZ) changed the charges to burglary and intentional damage.
At the hearing, the first thing my solicitor suggested to the judge was that he read the small claims decision.
After reading it, the judge turned to the police and told them they weren’t going to win, and that they should get legal advice. Forty five minutes later all charges were dismissed.
I applied for all my costs (£2500), this was completely unopposed by the police and they will be paying in the next few days.
The question. Should I sue the police for false arrest and false imprisonment as they never had any reason to arrest me?
Theft is “dishonestly…without claim of right…with the intent to permanently deprive”. As far as I am concerned I still own them, in fact the judge remarked that if I had a ‘retention of title’ clause on the invoices (which I did) I could still own them.
Meanwhile pissed of customer’s insurance company paid out £4000 for another company to install two new units, they applied to the police for reparation (the fight over those is another story, the insurance company still have my units).
For brevity many details have been left out. I engaged the same solicitor who helped me fight a charge of “theft of a wheel clamp” a few years ago. The police dropped that one just prior to the hearing. (Lady solicitor BTW, used to be a police prosecutor).
Mrs Caziques says drop it, but the police should surely know the basics of the law and shouldn’t arrest anyone just because they feel like it. I’m mighty pissed off with them wasting my time.
If it makes any difference, I’m 60.
Over to you.
So should I?
The story.
As part of an underfloor heating system I installed two hot water heat pumps for a customer, invoiced for £5000. All e mails and the order etc etc were with the customer.
This was the third and final stage of a complete system, the customer said we should send all invoices to his building company – the first two were sent and paid.
Soon after the third invoice was sent, the building company went into liquidation.
So we took the customer to the small claims court for payment (as he refused to pay).
He claimed to have paid the building company (which in New Zealand law could give him title), but provided no evidence. Anyway, the referee decided I had a contract with the building company, therefore customer didn’t have to pay – but no finding was determined as to ownership.
As far as I was concerned the heat pumps still belonged to me, so I arranged with a couple of contractors to repossess them.
I called the police and requested their presence at the property at 9am one morning.
At 9am the police weren’t there, so the contractors nipped over the back fence (I am trespassed from the property), removed them both in 10 minutes and passed them over the fence and put them on the back of my pick up.
Customer was very pissed off, and called the police. He also stood in front of vehicles trying to stop us driving away.
200 metres from his house I saw the police coming up the road, so I stopped and waved them down – this allowed the contractors to drive off.
A discussion with the police ensued. Pissed off customer provided the small claims documents – after reading this the female cop said to me “you lost”. I agreed we lost, therefore I was collecting my units as customer didn’t have to pay us. “right” she said “put them back or be arrested”.
As I didn’t put them back (no tools or equipment, and I was trespassed), I was arrested for theft.
After being processed and bailed (but not interviewed), I got back to the pick up a couple of hours later, of course the heat pumps were missing.
The matter took nearly a year to get to court, during which time I engaged a solicitor for £2500, and the police (who do their own prosecuting here in NZ) changed the charges to burglary and intentional damage.
At the hearing, the first thing my solicitor suggested to the judge was that he read the small claims decision.
After reading it, the judge turned to the police and told them they weren’t going to win, and that they should get legal advice. Forty five minutes later all charges were dismissed.
I applied for all my costs (£2500), this was completely unopposed by the police and they will be paying in the next few days.
The question. Should I sue the police for false arrest and false imprisonment as they never had any reason to arrest me?
Theft is “dishonestly…without claim of right…with the intent to permanently deprive”. As far as I am concerned I still own them, in fact the judge remarked that if I had a ‘retention of title’ clause on the invoices (which I did) I could still own them.
Meanwhile pissed of customer’s insurance company paid out £4000 for another company to install two new units, they applied to the police for reparation (the fight over those is another story, the insurance company still have my units).
For brevity many details have been left out. I engaged the same solicitor who helped me fight a charge of “theft of a wheel clamp” a few years ago. The police dropped that one just prior to the hearing. (Lady solicitor BTW, used to be a police prosecutor).
Mrs Caziques says drop it, but the police should surely know the basics of the law and shouldn’t arrest anyone just because they feel like it. I’m mighty pissed off with them wasting my time.
If it makes any difference, I’m 60.
Over to you.
t situation but why drag it out? It's just stubborn.
To elaborate, and assuming that for all relevant purposes NZ law is the same as English law (which in matters such as contract and theft it mostly is, AFAIK), the customer had a legit claim to own the stuff. You were unlucky to end up with an unpaid bill from an insolvent company, but that is business risk and is insurable. Retention of title would not always be effective against a third party dealing in good faith with the company that you sold the stuff to. Taking things into your own hands by grabbing stuff from someone else's land is never a good idea.
The police had grounds to arrest you and you were lucky with your judge and lucky that the police folded at court. I would leave it at that and not take on the stress and cost of a lawsuit that would probably fail.
The business lesson is to apply more effective credit control measures when dealing with contractors, and be clear about which party you are contracting with.
The police had grounds to arrest you and you were lucky with your judge and lucky that the police folded at court. I would leave it at that and not take on the stress and cost of a lawsuit that would probably fail.
The business lesson is to apply more effective credit control measures when dealing with contractors, and be clear about which party you are contracting with.
I don’t know the conditions of arrest in NZ, but here in Blighty police just need suspicion that an offence has been committed.
In short, just because you’ve been found not guilty, it doesn’t mean the arrest was unlawful. If Police suspected an offence had, or was being committed, then an arrest would be lawful.
Of course things in NZ may be different.
In short, just because you’ve been found not guilty, it doesn’t mean the arrest was unlawful. If Police suspected an offence had, or was being committed, then an arrest would be lawful.
Of course things in NZ may be different.
caziques said:
A bizarre New Zealand story, which has come to a conclusion if I decide not to sue the police…
The question. Should I sue the police for false arrest and false imprisonment as they never had any reason to arrest me?
Theft is “dishonestly�without claim of right…with the intent to permanently deprive”. As far as I am concerned I still own them, in fact the judge remarked that if I had a ‘retention of title’ clause on the invoices (which I did) I could still own them.
They had every reason to arrest you at the time, you had stolen something that wasn't yours. You made a claim at court and lost. What happened in the time since that moment is irrelevant, you want to sue them for that incident for which they acted correctly at the time. You can't just go and take back something from someone after a dispute with somebody completely different. The question. Should I sue the police for false arrest and false imprisonment as they never had any reason to arrest me?
Theft is “dishonestly�without claim of right…with the intent to permanently deprive”. As far as I am concerned I still own them, in fact the judge remarked that if I had a ‘retention of title’ clause on the invoices (which I did) I could still own them.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff