Pondrew said:
...... thats illegal here
Comes under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulation, its false information.
A precautionary tale when selling a car !
- Thread starter stijohnny
- Start date
...... thats illegal here
Comes under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulation, its false information.
Flyingfifer said:
Another one in Scotland in a Known Thief (KT) and they can stop you on that basis and as FF says you’ve “gone equipped” you get charged with that and are regularly sentenced the same way as you would be if you had committed the crime. Our justice system sees it as a mere timing technicality, 10 minutes later your likely to have committed the crime you’re going equipped for. They can lift you and charge you for something as simple as carrying a single screwdriver.
I'm no expert, but surely the fact they tampered with the vehicle, to make it appear as if there was a fault, then attempted to buy it for less than it's true market value, has to be fraud. The police don't want to know because it's way down on there list, but it's still illegal.Pondrew said:
Agree contact the Fraud line FlyingFifer Linked to and put the videos up on social media to warn others, as long as you are happy/confident they won't come around and pore oil through your letter box, if they see it. :x
At the summit of the picturesque fens
Me neither! Just trying to put a logical and different perspective on what happened.buzyg said:
I would be interested to hear what this fraud line has to say about it. Is attempted duping a crime? I can't see it's attempted fraud, as they wanted to pay him money, no matter how little. I thought fraud was defined as gaining money by deception, they weren't. Gaining a discount by deception, yes, but is that illegal?
Luckily he smelled a rat in time and didn't get hit over the head or his car stolen, or both.
Pondrew said:
Is a crappy thing to happen for sure. Alarm bells would be ringing straight away someone coming to spend I presume a fair amount of money on a car willing to look at it in the dark though :? As has been said, selling privately is a nightmare these days, don't think I'd do it again either.
Agree with what you've said, Police will never have enough time or resources to investigate or even a chance of getting a prosecution for what would be viewed as a minor crime in the scheme of things (that's if it even falls under a definable crime). Does he have the offenders address or contact details beside a mobile phone number? Is it absolutely clear on CCTV that they were putting oil into the places you've mentioned? If there's any possibility of doubt it'll get torn apart in court with a half decent lawyer and that's even if they can ever be found again in the first place. Sad but it's one of those you learn from and take it on the chin.
There are honest, genuine cash buyers out there still (like me).Thanks everyone for your thoughts and ideas, I'll pass on the messages and Fraud line link and also come back if there are any further updates.
In the meantime if you are selling your car be careful, there are probably a lot more scams that scumbags out there are willing to try!
In the meantime if you are selling your car be careful, there are probably a lot more scams that scumbags out there are willing to try!
Pondrew said:
From our criminal code, which apparently is based on UK law..
Attempts to commit offences
A person can be found guilty under this provision even where they do not carry out all the actions necessary to commit the offence and even where they desist from committing the offence of their own accord.
Under Section 4 of the Criminal Code, a person attempts to commit an offence when he or she intends to carry out an offence and begins to put the intention into execution.
A person can be found guilty under this provision even where they do not carry out all the actions necessary to commit the offence and even where they desist from committing the offence of their own accord.
It is immaterial whether it is, in fact, impossible to carry out the offence due to circumstances unknown to the offender.
Not sure why you would blame the victim here but.....
As others have said you do indeed have various laws to prevent crime, rather than waiting for it to occur.
I'm not blaming the victim. If you read my posts properly (which you obviously haven't), I was trying to play devil's advocate, that is looking at it from the law's point of view. As I have stated multiple times on this thread, I don't disagree that anything that happened here SHOULDN'T be a crime, just not convinced it actually IS. :roll:rdgreen said:
AND if there was an attempted fraud, what the police can realistically do about it?
Isnt that why the word "conspiracy “ is used rather than attempted, people go to jail all the time for conspiracy to commit crimes without ever even actually commiting one.. there does of course have to be some hard evidence rather than hearsay which it seems is lacking here as the video footage would be inconclusive, they have conspired to commit fraud but I believe Pondew you are right there's not much that can be done about it unfortunatelyPondrew said:
Pondrew said:
Dude, BS.
You started off by suggesting that the neighbour was stupid for having 2 guys come and see the car
Pondrew said:
You then went on to suggest there was no offence committed and basically ridiculing any attempt to pursue it
Pondrew said:
You then reiterate there was no crime committed (in your opinion), back that up by claiming that you have to be "under duress" (which you do not need to be from a legal perspective) and lastly try to belittle people who want the police and the laws of their country to protect them.
Pondrew said:
You had nuclear hot take, just accept it and save your shoes all this walk back :slaphead:
This is a scam, scams are illegal, just because your scam failed doesnt make it any less illegal. Bet your a$$ if they tried that at a dealership the cops would be there!
In UK law this is about as straight forward a case of Fruad by misrepresentation as your likely to see.
Section 2 of the Fraud act 2006. No actual gain needs to have been made; as a result it's not possible to attempt fraud. The legal Definition is as follows:
"Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The defendant:
made a false representation
dishonestly
knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss"
The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant and their intent.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/fraud-act-2006
It goes on further to say (amongst many other things)
"Gain" includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one does not have (Section 5 (3)).
"Loss" includes a loss by not getting what one might get as well as a loss by parting with what one has (Section 5 (4)).
The Defendant must intend to make the gain or cause the loss by means of the false representation, which can be hard to prove but the Cctv in this case would speak to their intent and false representation. Identifying the b£#*! ~ds is another matter!
Section 2 of the Fraud act 2006. No actual gain needs to have been made; as a result it's not possible to attempt fraud. The legal Definition is as follows:
"Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The defendant:
made a false representation
dishonestly
knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss"
The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant and their intent.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/fraud-act-2006
It goes on further to say (amongst many other things)
"Gain" includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one does not have (Section 5 (3)).
"Loss" includes a loss by not getting what one might get as well as a loss by parting with what one has (Section 5 (4)).
The Defendant must intend to make the gain or cause the loss by means of the false representation, which can be hard to prove but the Cctv in this case would speak to their intent and false representation. Identifying the b£#*! ~ds is another matter!
Jamie25 said:
:hattip: