Caravan Stolen by Travellers Cannot be Returned cos of Human Rights

[scribblet]

Say what !! This poor couple spent their savings on a retirement plan, a new caravan but it was stolen by travellers. The caravan has been found but the police won't return it because - guess what - it's against the Travellers' human rights :evil: I think I'd be watching it to see if they left it then hitch it up quickly....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381292/Police-wont-hand-stolen-caravan-couple-protect-human-rights-travellers-living-it.html#ixzz2blqeSItp

[Guest Derek L]

Say what !! This poor couple spent their savings on a retirement plan, a new caravan but it was stolen by travellers. The caravan has been found but the police won't return it because - guess what - it's against the Travellers' human rights :evil: I think I'd be watching it to see if they left it then hitch it up quickly....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381292/Police-wont-hand-stolen-caravan-couple-protect-human-rights-travellers-living-it.html#ixzz2blqeSItp

So, if the old couple stole it back, and started living in it, police would do nothing I'd hope....

[Signals.Cpl]

So, if the old couple stole it back, and started living in it, police would do nothing I'd hope....

Not so, they would be arrested for human rights abuses... some people have rights and some people don't, generally if you pay your taxes and are a productive citizen you have less rights than those who live a life of crime.

[Guest Derek L]

Not so, they would be arrested for human rights abuses... some people have rights and some people don't, generally if you pay your taxes and are a productive citizen you have less rights than those who live a life of crime.

Apparently so……..what adds insult to injury is that the old couple is still making monthly payments for the damn thing…….I wonder if, like here, they stopped making payments, would the dealer repo the RV? I’m not sure how that works in the UK….

[Signals.Cpl]

Apparently so……..what adds insult to injury is that the old couple is still making monthly payments for the damn thing…….I wonder if, like here, they stopped making payments, would the dealer repo the RV? I’m not sure how that works in the UK….

Maybe they would end up with extra costs to relocate the "victims", that and maybe bad credit?

[The_Squid]

LOL How ridiculous is that.... maybe I will steal a car and bed down for the night in it. By morning, it will legally be mine!! hmmmm.... where can I find a Ferrari around here....?

[Bonam]

Hah, yet another in the long line of millions of examples of how "human rights" are nothing but an excuse to trample on the rights of good productive people to benefit criminals and leeches.

[scribblet]

I'd love to see a follow up to this, maybe the couple will steal it back. If they were charged I can see a big protest over it !

[cybercoma]

This rights-language crap needs to stop. You don't have a "right to a happy retirement." Nowhere is this guaranteed by any bill of rights or charter on the planet. What idiocy. What's happening to these people is wrong. The cops should arrest the other family for being in possession of stolen property and return it to the rightful owners, even if they were stupid enough not to have insurance. But, man, what stunning ignorance to think that you have the "right to a happy retirement" when there's thousands of elderly people suffering in poverty.

Edited August 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Also, the situation isn't as cut and dry as someone stole it from them and that's that. The people presently occupying the camper purchased it not knowing that it was stolen property. The police, therefore, cannot evict them from the camper if they're using it as a home, bought it legally, and did not know that it was stolen. It's up to the family to sue the storage facility for losing their camper. So I stand corrected, the police shouldn't just kick the people out and take back the camper.

[cybercoma]

Sorry to break up the populist back patting.

Edited August 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[scribblet]

Sorry to burst your little bubble or outburst LOL

That's 'allegedly purchased' BTW

[Hudson Jones]

Human rights is overrated. Next time someone cries human rights violations, please think of this story.

[Bitsy]

I am surprised that they were able to get financing on the camper without carrying insurance.

[GostHacked]

I am surprised that they were able to get financing on the camper without carrying insurance.

If they had gotten insurance, they would also have found that the trailer was already registered in someone elses name. Hard to get plates for it when already registered with the state under someone elses name. I feel for the people living there now, but this thing should be returned to the rightful owner.

They may not have a 'right' to a nice retirment, but they paid for this thing, so well within their rights to get this camper back.

[Bitsy]

If they had gotten insurance, they would also have found that the trailer was already registered in someone elses name. Hard to get plates for it when already registered with the state under someone elses name. I feel for the people living there now, but this thing should be returned to the rightful owner.

They may not have a 'right' to a nice retirment, but they paid for this thing, so well within their rights to get this camper back.

OK, I am confused. Are you saying that the couple who purchased the camper did not have clear title to the vehicle and that is why they did not have insurance?

[scribblet]

If they had gotten insurance, they would also have found that the trailer was already registered in someone elses name. Hard to get plates for it when already registered with the state under someone elses name. I feel for the people living there now, but this thing should be returned to the rightful owner.

They may not have a 'right' to a nice retirment, but they paid for this thing, so well within their rights to get this camper back.

The original owners didn't get insurance because they were 'in between policies' whatever that means.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10211103/Couples-stolen-caravan-cannot-be-returned-as-could-breach-traveller-familys-human-rights.html

The real owners of the caravan bought it on hire purchase and are still making payments on it. All we know is that the travellers ‘allegedly’ purchased a caravan worth tens of thousands for £300 from a guy (probably their cousin) in a pub and have a scrap of paper as a receipt which they could have written themselves. They didn’t know it was stolen… sure… guess they also believe in the tooth fairy. At the very least the traveller is in receipt of stolen goods which is a crime.

I’m not sure why the new owners of this caravan would not be responsible for the rest of the payments now that they have possession and nothing to say they should not assume payments. Also, what if the real owners quit making the payments, could the company then repossess it. (assuming they could find it )

Some additional info here and it seems the case has been re-opened and now they can give it back to the rightful owners but have to find it first. Good luck with that now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-23612766

"We are aware of the public's concern but this was a unique set of circumstances and we remain committed to protecting our communities.

"A key part of [the] inquiry is to locate the caravan and return it to its legal owners."

Edited August 14, 2013 by scribblet

[scribblet]

Proceeds of a crime act.. wonder why it wasn't used

obtaining, acquiring, using or having possession of criminal property for inadequate consideration is an offence under s329 POCA.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/section/329

[guyser]

The original owners didn't get insurance because they were 'in between policies' whatever that means.

Means they let the last one expire with out getting a new policy...yet. (recall it was stored so they thought safe) They planned on getting one when they took it out later.

I’m not sure why the new owners of this caravan would not be responsible for the rest of the payments now that they have possession and nothing to say they should not assume payments. Also, what if the real owners quit making the payments, could the company then repossess it. (assuming they could find it )

The title is in the purchasers name , thus they are contractually bound to pay for it. Same here too, if your car is stolen you still have to pay the loan.

We have the same thing here, and in fact even worse scenarios. How about you finding out your house is being foreclosed due to non payment of the mortgage you never knew was on your house? Sucks, but banks have foreclosed to get thier money back when in fact it could be proven that it was fraudulent.

[Bitsy]

As the owner acknowledges, they should have had insurance; this would be a non-story had they purchased insurance.

[GostHacked]

As the owner acknowledges, they should have had insurance; this would be a non-story had they purchased insurance.

The trailer still needs to be registered correct? And I am sure with a camper that size there is a serial number or something of the like, and that would be registered with the DMV or MTO. A trailer must be plated too correct?

Its a confusing situation, and unfortunately someone is going to get screwed in this deal.

[scribblet]

The real owners are getting screwed. They even have the special 17-digit registration certificate matching the code etched onto each window proving it is theirs.

They let the insurance lapse while it was in storage as it was supposed to be secure, if they were actually towing it they would have to put the insurance back on. Which brings us to the storage and why they wouldn't have some liability in this. I suppose they would have to hire a lawyer to sue.

However, the real reason behind this is politics and the protection of 'traveller's rights'. In other words the powers that be don't want to be accused of racism and won't go on to a traveller site to evict them. There have been problems before on traveller sites where the police are mobbed and have to use riot police. In other words, if the illegal owners were not 'travellers' the police would have seized it and returned it to the rightful owners.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8835560/Dale-Farm-eviction-as-it-happened.html

They are now willing to seize it - if they can find it. I guess the pressure was on to do the right thing.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/09/police-apologise-to-couple-after-they-fail-to-seize-stolen-caravan-because-other-family-are-in-it-3918107/

[cybercoma]

If they had gotten insurance, they would also have found that the trailer was already registered in someone elses name. Hard to get plates for it when already registered with the state under someone elses name. I feel for the people living there now, but this thing should be returned to the rightful owner.

They may not have a 'right' to a nice retirment, but they paid for this thing, so well within their rights to get this camper back.

I agree with everything you said. The rightful owners should be able to get it back. But if there are people using it as a domicile now and they were not aware that it was a stolen good, then you have a serious conflict that needs to be resolved. The police can't throw them in the street just to give the retirees their motorhome back. The retirees have a home. They need to go after the storage company for the cost of the camper, since it was the storage company's lack of security that led to its theft.

[cybercoma]

Proceeds of a crime act.. wonder why it wasn't used

obtaining, acquiring, using or having possession of criminal property for inadequate consideration is an offence under s329 POCA.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/section/329

Because if you read the section preceding that you will note that the person who acquires the property has to know or suspect that it was stolen. The police indicated that the current occupants had no idea it was stolen and even received written (albeit on a napkin) proof of purchase. The people that are living in it now are not the ones that stole. That is the problem. Someone else stole it and the storage company failed to secure it. It's those people that need to be pursued. Unfortunately, the police said they do not have enough evidence to go after them for whatever reason. That I don't believe, but it doesn't matter. The point is that the people currently in possession of the RV bought it unaware of its theft. Edited August 15, 2013 by cybercoma

[guyser]

They need to go after the storage company for the cost of the camper, since it was the storage company's lack of security that led to its theft.

They would have to prove liability and that my friend would be something short of impossible.