Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#1
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#2
Human Rights?
The sad thing here is that the Solicitor concerned has the same grasp of this subject as your average loon. This is nothing but another case of the Police running away from their clear duty.
Perhaps a charge of handling stolen goods would not bring the situation to a more respectable conclusion, as only the father would be charged, and the chances of charging rent have gone out of the window, as the rightful owners have no clear idea where their property is.
IF ONLY they had kept up with their insurance.
Caravaners seem equally confused...
http://www.caravanclub.co.uk/community/discussions/the-social-room/general-chat/Human-rights--You-cant-have-it-back-/rt/536294/?p=0Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#3
Well, here is a fine way to begin August 2013.
I got it wrong in my post above, quite, quite wrong.
You see, this whole thing has not one thing to do with 'human rights', and nowhere in the communication from the Police is there mention of anybody's human rights;sacrosanct or violated.
But all is not entirely lost, read on...
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/daily-mail-wrongly-castigates-human-rights-and-travellers-in-article-re-stolen-caravan/Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#4
The really sad thing about this is that even if the couple eventually get their caravan back it will never be the same for them as it was prior to the theft and that is assuming it will be in as good a condition as when it was stolen........... which I doubt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#5
i really don't see what is so complicated here, just a simple case of nicking - over to you police.
different with someone squatting in somebody's house which is then a civil matter.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#6
Had you read the arguments in the link at #3 Howard, you would know that 'simple' this is not.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#7
but should be tom I think howard means
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#8
What 'should' happen, is as stated as what could happen:The caravan could be seized as evidence. Why this is not done, nobody says.
There might be something in the idea of challenging the "Secure Site", and making a claim against their insurance, but there might be a clause in that contract which insists that the caravans are to be insured by the owners; more work for a Solicitor.
What of the Hire-Purchase agreement? Is it not common for there to be a requirement for full insurance cover at all times?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.