£10,000 bike collection accidentally thrown away by council workmen

[Drago]

Theft is both together, dishonest appropriation AND permanent deprivation. I just googled 'theft definition UK' and now I look like an expert! :-)

Absoluteadiddley. One must...

Dishonestly appropriate.

The property of another.

With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

All three elements must be present or there is no theft.

 

[gaijintendo]

Absoluteadiddley. One must...

Dishonestly appropriate.

The property of another.

With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

All three elements must be present or there is no theft.

Definition of Theft RAP

One must...

1 Dishonestly appropriate the
2 property of another
3 With the intention of permanently depriving it from the other
All three elements must be easily proven
Otherwise your bicycle hasn’t been stolen.

*crosses arms*

 

[Drago]

And 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly.

 

[Pale Rider]

I think the Phillips Ecclesiastical has a small petrol engine.

If so, taking it should qualify for the offence of twoc - taking without the owner's consent.

That refers to a 'mechanicallly propelled vehicle' which this is, and there's no need to prove intention to permanently deprive.

The offence was introduced to cover 'joyriders' in the 80s, who could defend theft on the basis they only wanted to take the car, race it around a bit, then dump it - no intention to permanently deprive.

 

[ColinJ]

I think the Phillips Ecclesiastical has a small petrol engine.

If so, taking it should qualify for the offence of twoc - taking without the owner's consent.

That refers to a 'mechanicallly propelled vehicle' which this is, and there's no need to prove intention to permanently deprive.

The offence was introduced to cover 'joyriders' in the 80s, who could defend theft on the basis they only wanted to take the car, race it around a bit, then dump it - no intention to permanently deprive.

So, is it ok to joyride a bike and then dump it?

As for taking stuff away that should not be taken ... My sister was going to cut her front lawn once. She put her electric mower on the lawn and walked indoors to plug it in. Within seconds she felt a tug on the cable and ran outside to find a couple of dodgy scrap collecting characters trying to put the mower on the back of their pick-up truck. They claimed that they thought the mower had been 'put out for scrap'. My sister pointed out that scrap mowers are not normally still attached to houses by power cables ...!

 

[mjr]

Theft is both together, dishonest appropriation AND permanent deprivation. I just googled 'theft definition UK' and now I look like an expert! :-)

Isn't it dishonest to breach a contract which permits vehicles to be kept in the garage?

I hope @Pale Rider is correct and the council is done for joyriding as well!

 

[Profpointy]

So, is it ok to joyride a bike and then dump it?

No it's not ok. It's the same offence as joyriding a car. Twok'ing taking (a carriage) without owner's consent. An acquantance was done for same, and for the additional offence of being drunk in charge of said carriage. They didn't pursue a theft charge because when he was challenged by the police "is this your bike sir?" he replied "no, I was just having a go" after he'd seen it unlocked. As he was bang to rights, he plead guilty, feigned a little contrition, and was duly fined.

 

[Drago]

I think the Phillips Ecclesiastical has a small petrol engine.

If so, taking it should qualify for the offence of twoc - taking without the owner's consent.

That refers to a 'mechanicallly propelled vehicle' which this is, and there's no need to prove intention to permanently deprive.

The offence was introduced to cover 'joyriders' in the 80s, who could defend theft on the basis they only wanted to take the car, race it around a bit, then dump it - no intention to permanently deprive.

To be a TWOC they have to take it for their own use, or the use of another. If they don't use it, don't let anyone use it, and simply chuck it on the tip then TWOC isn't complete either.

 

[mjr]

To be a TWOC they have to take it for their own use, or the use of another. If they don't use it, don't let anyone use it, and simply chuck it on the tip then TWOC isn't complete either.

Does "use" actually mean driving/riding it, though? If it's not established, the council probably won't like defending a test case on that!

Also, if they took it to the council tip around here, it will probably have been sold on, so isn't that "the use of another"?

 

[mjr]

https://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/new...-council-what-happened-to-our-bikes-1-8356737 (thanks to Bez on CUK forum)

 

[Pale Rider]

To be a TWOC they have to take it for their own use, or the use of another. If they don't use it, don't let anyone use it, and simply chuck it on the tip then TWOC isn't complete either.

There could be an argument over use, which is all the law says: 'use for himself or another'.

Clearly, the obvious use for a car is to drive it.

But one might say even if the taker only used the bike to prop open a shed door, he has still used it.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/12

 

[Drago]

I can't figure how the garage can appear to be both abandoned, and yet simultaneously still some to some moderately valuable vehicles?

As for their fate...my guess is the council used a contractor, and the contractors lads either tipped them or, less likely, without any malice simply blagged them and sold them.

 

[NorthernDave]

The council admit to keeping taking the rent payments, which surely means they had a contract with the renters?
Be difficult to see how they could argue that away in a court of law, despite claims it only took the payments "in error".

Mind you, good luck getting a council to admit they've done anything wrong. When they smashed our wheelie bin, they managed to deny knowing anything about it and claim it only happened as the bin was too heavy in the same email...

 

[Drago]

Does "use" actually mean driving/riding it, though? If it's not established, the council probably won't like defending a test case on that!

Also, if they took it to the council tip around here, it will probably have been sold on, so isn't that "the use of another"?

The people that carted them off were almost certainly contractors. They'd just be following instructions from the carncil.

As innocent contractors, doing what they're paid to do, and (presumably) with no reason to believe it wasn't a lawful instruction, they would have no " mens rea", and would not be guilty of a criminal offence.

 

[raleighnut]

The council admit to keeping taking the rent payments, which surely means they had a contract with the renters?
Be difficult to see how they could argue that away in a court of law, despite claims it only took the payments "in error".

Mind you, good luck getting a council to admit they've done anything wrong. When they smashed our wheelie bin, they managed to deny knowing anything about it and claim it only happened as the bin was too heavy in the same email...

I read that the payment they took in error will be returned 'in full', bit of a slap round the chops when you've lost 10 valuable bikes I think.