Re: BT Wayleaves

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message <4364ff5a$0$6532$ed2619ec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Howard Neil <hneil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes


It does not surprise me. I saw a report in the paper recently where a company had used a false address
and the electricity bill was issued to the false address. However the false address did not exist so the equivalent of the "spell checker"
converted the address into a best guess. The residents at the address, who of course had a different name, contacted the company telling them that it was in error. The company now having a correct name modified the bill for what is now a correct name and address.
They refused to pay and a debt collector was called in. Eventually it was sorted, but the electricity companies attitude to why they
did not follow up the reasons why the people denied liabilty was that "as a false address had been used it was reasonable to assume any other assertions were also false".


I would have reported it as a crime, making unwarranted demands with menaces (AKA blackmail) contrary S21 Theft Act 1968. That would have made someone's eyes water a little. 


Hmm. This is my thread so I have no concerns about highjacking:-)

I have an ongoing situation which may benefit from both legal scrutiny and experienced advice.....

Around 18 months back, a small lorry towing a trailer loaded with an industrial *cherry picker* turned up in my yard. The driver, someone I vaguely knew as living in the village, asked if I could store it while his boss found a bigger yard. A deal was struck on the basis that the machine would be used by the driver to repair some chimney brickwork not safely accessible by ladder. A suitable nettle patch was found and the trailer parked. I was rather concerned that until pointed out, no attempt was made to protect the battery charger from weather. Not being totally green, I took note of the driver's mobile telephone and the details from the tow truck sign writing.

Needless to say, no chimney repairs have been carried out, telephone calls to the presumed owner fail to reach anyone willing to admit any knowledge of the m/c. The driver is still full of promises to do the job and take the m/c away but nothing happens.

There is always the possibility this is stolen equipment but seems to me to be a mistaken purchase as unsuitable for the jobs they had in mind.

Ignoring theft, this appears to be a purely civil matter and I have invoiced the presumed owners at £5.00/week storage. I shall follow up with a reminder and then threaten court proceedings through the small claims system. In the absence of any formal agreement, I am on sticky ground but it seems to me that by ignoring an invoice setting out the storage terms, the owner is in effect agreeing to those terms. 

I don't know enough about contract law to advise re the storage.

However, if you now have suspicions that the equipment is stolen I would advise you to speak to a local police officer. Before you do, be prepared for questions as to why you did not have suspicions in the first place and why you are now suspicious.

Handling stolen goods is a very serious offence and you have a better chance of showing your innocence if you make the first move. If the equipment *is* stolen and police enquiries lead to your property, it may be much more difficult for you to avoid prosecution and the questioning will not be so friendly. If you make the first move you show you are acting in good faith. If the equipment is *not* stolen, the police will not mind checking it out and it will put your mind at rest. It will also make claiming storage a little easier (I'm not sure how much sympathy you would get from the courts for charging to store stolen goods).

--
Regards

Howard Neil


--
Howard Neil
.

Loading