Mobile Money (the Police claim it's a Civil matter) !!!

[Jasper1965]

Mobile Money have taken a vehicle to which they cannot possibly have lawful title and as they were obviously aware of the ID theft aspect of the case this only compounds the unlawfulness of their actions.

I think the word most commonly used when somebody takes a car that doesn't belong to them with the intention of depriving the owner permanently is "THEFT".

 

You can get an ex parte injunction to prevent sale of the vehicle it costs around £150 and afaik you simply set out your reasons for the injunction to be made and present yourself at County Court and try to catch hold of a Judge. Your Sols might be the way to go but you need instant action.

I suggest you also write directly to Mobile Money, telling them why they don't own the vehicle and forbidding the sale of your vehicle. Send this special delivery so you can prove the disposal (if any) was done fully in the knowledge that they didn't own the vehicle.

Keep on at the police it is theft pure and simple!!!

Contact your insurers, report the vehicle stolen and get their legal service dept involved.

Good luck

[Jasper1965]

@Gaston:

 

Theft Act 1968

1 Basic definition of theft

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

There's no "intent" here the crime has already been committed so if we look at the definition of theft there are only two questions to answer:

1) Was the property dishonestly appropriated?

2) Were/Are MM attempting to permanently deprive the owner of th e vehicle?

 

1) again from the theft act 1968

2 "Dishonestly"

(1) A persons appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest ó

(a)

if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person;

So can MM claim to believe they had the right to deprive the owner?

Frankly not a chance since they were made aware of the criminal case, at which they were technically the victim so to claim they didn't know the person they lent money to was not the owner is impossible and having purchased a vehicle from somebody other than the owner, a company in that line of business cannot claim not to know the legal implications.

2) Is there an intent to deprive permanently? Difficult to prove at the moment but if they are stupid enough to sell the vehicle it's a resounding YES.

[Jasper1965]

Well done and thanks very much for explaining the process for us too.

 

Hope you feel just a little better knowing that your vehicle is protected by a Court order now.

I'm still firmly on the side of those who think what MM has done is a criminal offence rather than civil. if somebody stole my car and both I and the police knew who they were I'd be more than a little annoyed if they just shrugged their shoulders and left it to me to do all the legwork.

Sounds like a good move getting onto CCTA, be sure to keep the OFT informed as they've already tried to shut down MM and it is I believe at appeal stage now.

(And don't forget to keep a record of any and all costs you have incurred as a result of your vehicle being stolen. Time spent chasing up MM, time on legal research, Court time etc. etc. then there might be taxi fares, legal fees etc then go for damages from them too.

[Jasper1965]

As DoH says you will be waiting a long time to hear back from a Chief Constable.

 

may I suggest that you do the following:

 

Phone your local police forces "Professional Standards" dept. You will speak to an inspector with whom you should firstly lodge a complaint about your treatment by your local "front desk". Tell them that you have reported a theft and have positively identified the thief but the local staff are unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Point out that MM have taken a car they didn't own from private property and are now attempting to extort the sum of £7,000 from you for its return and because the police didn't do anything you've had to pay to obtain a civil court order to stop the car thieves selling your vehicle.

 

I bet you don't have to wait long for a reply on that phonecall, hours possibly, two days at the very most.

[Jasper1965]

All the plod stuff is very interesting but you retain focus on getting the car back.

 

I wager presenting the facts lucidly to an Inspector at Prof Standards will see the vehicle returned far quicker than any other method. PS are there for handling these type of disputes, you don't phone PS to report a car stolen but they are exactly the people you should speak to if a police officer (or more likely a civilian in this case) makes a decision which is patently incorrect. Nobodys advising complaining just for complainings sake the complaint is neccesary to get PS involved.

 

OP is the owner and registered keeper of the vehicle.

MM have taken the vehicle without the OP's permission.

MM are trying to extort the sum of £7,000 out of the OP for the return of the vehicle.

MM do not and never have owned the vehicle and have no lawful claim against the OP, even if they did have a lawful claim they can't just seize property without a valid order from the Court.

 

 

This is theft and extortion, how would anyone on this thread feel if I came round your house in the middle of the night, took your car and then demanded £7k for its return or threatened to sell it and keep the proceeds?

Can anyone explain the difference in these scenarios?

 

I'm staggered that people still accept this to be a civil offence.

 

And finally a question for the OP.

 

I've always felt something was being held back and suspect the "convicted fraudster" to be a family member, an errant son perhaps or somebody equally close enough that you feel this has affected your legal position. No need to elaborate but rest assured if it was an errant son or a trusted friend or similar who took the key and got the loan this has no effect whatsoever upon the legal status unless it can be proven by MM that you were involved and had knowledge of the fraud. I suspect this would have come out at trial, the fact that it didn't makes it nigh on impossible for MM to prove that anyone other than the person convicted was involved.

 

If MM had followed the procedure correctly they would never have lent money against the vehicle, that they did is their loss although they are entitled to launch CIVIL proceedings against the person responsible for their loss they have no LAWFUL claim against you.

[Jasper1965]

"I have sent a bill with receipts to MM for £3,800.00 up to 14th Dec 2011 for expenses incurred including legal advice and replacement car hire."

 

Sterling work, keep it up!!

 

"I get the impression now Jasper after your querie that when MM are happy that I had no involvement they will have to change their views then I need to start civil action to recoup loses."

 

Not so sure happy is the correct word to use here, more like when it is clearly explained to them by the police that they have stolen your vehicle.......

 

Yes unfortunately it's highly likely that you will need to raise proceedings against MM to recover your provable losses and any compensation you seek, this will be aided considerably if the police ever do get around to deciding that taking someones vehicle without permission or lawful right constitutes the criminal offence of theft. Don't expect any convictions as I'm sure this all just some terrible administrative error but the wording of any police reports could considerably help any civil action you areforced to follow.

[Jasper1965]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32448[/ATTACH]

Very fast response from Chief Constable

 

Did you write to Bournville Lane or Lloyd house?

 

Suggest you respond to that letter along the lines of:

 

Sir

 

Thank you for your prompt response dated 22nd December 2011.

 

I should just clarify that I have always asserted this to be a criminal matter, any assertion that this is a civil matter has not originated from and has at no time been perpetuated by me.

 

Mobile money took my vehicle from my property without my permission, without an order of the Court and without any other lawful claim to title.

Despite repeated demands Mobile Money have to date refused to return my vehicle.

Mobile Money originally intended to deprive me permanently of my vehicle.

I believe this to be a clear definition of theft.

That Mobile Money then offered to return my vehicle if I paid them the sum of £7,000 constitutes attempted extortion.

Mobile Money have done all this whilst undeniably in the knowledge that a third party was responsible for their loss and that they not only had no merititious claim in law against myself but that they also could not possibly have been passed true title to the vehicle as a result of the fraudulent transaction they entered into with the third party.

To prevent sale of my vehicle I have had to seek a civil injunction against mobile money at my own cost, that remains the entire extent of the civil aspect of this matter the rest is quite clearly criminal as described in statute.

Mobile Money are of course entitled to seek recompense from the perpetrator of the fraud through the civil courts, they are in no way entitled to seek or more appropriately seize such recompense from an innocent party.

 

I trust this clarifies matters as there still appears to be a slight misunderstanding over my reporting of this crime.

 

 

 

Just firmly nudge them in the right direction from the beginning it might save a game of merry go round in a few weeks when the DCI has had a look.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Jasper1965
Cheers CB!!

[Jasper1965]

I don't think I'd be very wide of the mark if I described the MM offices as approx 200 square foot comprising 3 desks, 2 employee, a photo copier and a drinks cooler. We're not talking Mobil Oil or BT here we're talking a very small franchise office and once again IMO it's beyond reasonable belief that the person sitting six feet away from the person involved didn't know what was happening/had happened.

 

FWIW I don't know where they're coming from saying they don't hold computerised records, they do, and I believe they scan documents, take photos etc as part of these records.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Jasper1965

[Jasper1965]

I believe the had to produce electronic scanned docs of the original fraud to the police to use at the Magistrates court recently so it will be interesting to see thier response.

 

So before they seized your vehicle they not only knew that it wasn't you who had taken out the fraudulent loan they had even supplied documentation to the Court to help prove it wasn't you?

 

At what point does any pleading that they weren't acting dishonestly when they took the vehicle, "they were simply seizing the security YOU had awarded them" fall flat on its face?

Edited December 31, 2011 by Jasper1965

[Jasper1965]

So MM advanced thousands of pounds without sight of the logbook.

And MM paid the money into the account of somebody who was not the registered keeper.

And MM accepted home made computer generated documents as proof of ownership and insurance.

 

You have to wonder don't you?

 

Not 100% surprised with your reply from Bournville Lane, senior officers do have a tendency to side with decisions made by junior staff from their own station in my experience whether those decisions are correct or not it's just bad form to admit fallibility to a member of the public.

Phone Lloyd House professional standards on 0345 113 5000 if you want an unbiased review from WMP.

[Jasper1965]

The phrase 'no legal precedent' is telling - because it has never been tested. I Believe this is wrong.

 

Too true you only have to spend some time on the Bailiffs and chattel mortgage forums on this site to understand that the police just do not want any involvement in these type of matters whatever the rights and wrongs. We're having trouble convincing the police that a builder who has taken in excess of £30,000 from householders in deposits for extensions in return for a few hundred £££'s worth of blocks and sand before disappearing might just actually be [causing problems] people (criminal) rather than "experiencing business difficulties" (civil). Frustrating!!

 

Anyway good luck to the OP for this mornings meeting, trust you'll be presenting them with your updated costs and damages bill!!

[Jasper1965]

And as for fraudsters not being able to pass title - have you heard of cases like Cundy v Lindsay?

 

 

Have you heard that the house of Lords upheld the appeal Court finding that title did not pass to Cundy (who had to return the goods).?

[Jasper1965]

Because a fraudster can't pass title? No. The case is still authority that there are circumstances where a fraudster can pass title. Try Phillips v Brooks

 

 

Phillips v Brooks is quite pertinent as it involves a face to face transaction. In P v B, A contracts with B in the mistaken belief that B is C. Judgment held that contract is between A and B as these are the two parties that entered into the contract. Notably C is wholly absolved from any involvement in the contract or Court proceedings.

 

In MobileMoney vs OP, MM contracts with 3rd party in the mistaken belief that 3P is OP. Op is absolved from any involvement in the contract which remains between MM and 3P.

This poses the simple following question:

"Did 3P have title to the vehicle when entering into the contract"?

 

If P v B establishes that in a face to face transaction a contract exists and then specifies that the contract is between the two parties who actually meet face to face, then why are MM trying to claim that they own the vehicle because their contract is quite clearly with 3P who held no title to the vehicle, OP being no party to the contract.

 

ps the fraudster had to first obtain title in order to pass it, this he did by virtue of "the contract to purchase" which is what the judgment is all about ie was the contract to purchase valid.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Jasper1965

[Jasper1965]

No Probs DoH between you me and GG the Op is going to have plenty of ammo for the civil action. GG has shown us there's some very clear case law on mistaken identity and it all favours the OP.

I'm not trawling back but I think I mentioned much earlier that MM have a case against 3P, the above post explains why I said that.

 

Wonder how the OP got on today.

[Jasper1965]

MM claim to have purchased title to the vehicle by virtue of a contractual agreement.

 

Cundy says contract void ergo no title passed to MM.

P v B says contract valid but between MM and someone who did not hold title ergo no title passed to MM. (nemo Dat)

 

Heads MM lose, tails MM lose

[Jasper1965]

That's a good read TFD verging on hilarious in parts. Well done!!

 

Three hours to get your vehicle back once the police express concerns about the behaviour of MM, that peristence paid dividends in the end. Are you going to thank Bournville Lane for their help and update them with the good news that Worcs. constabulary ordered the return of your vehicle so promptly?

That MM issued a claim against the malfeasor is undoubtedly an admittance that they knew they had no claim against you as your sol says, no wonder he's prepared to do a cfa, this is about as nailed on as it can get, I do hope he's a very expensive solicitor.

 

MM are likely to get away lightly though, a few thousand pounds in payout and costs when realistically somebody should be taking a very close look at this outfit with a view to revoking any trading licences they might hold. Don't hold your breath tho', right or wrong this sort of behaviour is just patently too much trouble for the various authorities to deal with, that's exactly why there's no precedent as quoted by the DCI.

 

Check the date of issue on the bil's court papers and don't forget to check your vehicle thoroughly, or better still get it into a dealer for a thorough checkover and bill MM for it.

 

Good luck you've still a way to go but you might even find part of it enjoyable.

[Jasper1965]

Fantastic very well done indeed. MM have been hit hard here and hopefully they will think very long and very hard before embarking upon ruining innocent peoples lives in future.

 

 

IMO MM would be well advised not to appeal but tbh I can't think of any grounds upon which an appeal could be formed.

[Jasper1965]

But such information would have also been available to Worcestershire police force who viewed the matter very differently from their colleagues in the West Midlands.

 

For fear of causing problems for Cag I shall proffer my view that these two forces might have erm "different priorities" and "different policing methods" with Bournville Lane having had quite a well documented history of such stretching back a few decades, and leave it at that.