# "Free" Xmas present? Advice appreciated please.



## H1-GBV (Feb 28, 2006)

A good friend, "Maria", used to get on well with her neighbours "Jack & Jill" but things have got sour lately. Before Xmas Jill ordered a present (probably expensive) for Jack via the internet, with delivery by DHL. She asked for it to be "left round the back" if she wasn't in.

Unfortunately, DHL left in in Maria's garden shed and sent Jill a photo as proof of their delivery. Jill posted the photo on F..book, saying "look at all the crap in this shed" and "I wouldn't want anything that has mixed with all this crap". Both got "likes" aplenty.

Maria has removed the box to the safety of her house and Jill has not asked for it. What is the legal status of the box?

I recall the "Unsolicited Goods Act" saying you can keep an item after 6 months (1 month if you inform the sender).
I recall folk being prosecuted for "stealing by finding".

Any advice appreciated.

TIA - Gordon


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

If I was Maria

I would think its Christmas, the season of goodwill and return the present to its rightful owner

Two wrongs will never make a right

No matter how you try to justify it 

Aldra


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

I would ask on facebook if she wanted the box that was left there by mistake by DHL as she had said she would not want it after mixing with all that crap.

But the best thing would be for Maria to ask Jill to come and collect the parcel that must have been left in her shed in error.When she knocks invite her in for coffee or a glass of wine. Friends should always forgive each other, it is why you are friends.

cabby


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

I agree with Cabby, life's FAR too short to be anything other than as laid back as possible !!!

Mend a few bridges

Andy


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

No life is not that short 

But we have the choice 

We always have the choice 

That's the thingthatmakes us What we are

The box doesntbelong to you
Tough

It belongs to another

You don't like them

So what

It's still theirs

Why would you want something that belongs to someone you don't like 
Unless you want to hurt them?

So no you deffinately don't want to hurt them
You can't hurt them without hurting yourself
Deep breath

You know one day

You may like me contemplate losing a special someone

Why hasten that day

Aldra


----------



## H1-GBV (Feb 28, 2006)

"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" and "turn the other cheek" may appeal to the good Christians amongst us BUT Jill publicly humiliated Maria, who does not believe that she will get her reward in Heaven.

I have little doubt that their mutual friends and neighbours would know exactly whose shed was "full of crap" as Maria has the only shed in the street!

Over the last few months I have advised Maria to make overtures to both Jack (who is more approachable) and Jill, but without success. She is still upset by Jill's actions, almost a month after the F..Book postings (I know: "get over it"; "move on"; "life's too short").

However, the question still remains: what is the legal status of the parcel?

Jill has not asked for it back (to the best of my knowledge, she has not even spoken a single word to Maria since an argument about cars parking outside their houses [have we met that hot potato before?] during September). She has, IMO, publicly renounced ownership of it. However, Maria does not wish to fall foul of the law (and a free Xmas present could be turned into a birthday present for her husband, who is the same age and has similar interests to Jack).

Thanks all: keep them coming please :kiss: - Gordon


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Anything left in a Taxi, has to be handed in to a police station( if you can find one these days) even if you know who the item belongs to.( however if contacted by owner you can deliver item to address given, unless the person is willing to wait until you are in close vercinity you may charge the fare from there to the location requested).

So Jill knows that Maria has the parcel, she acknowledged this on ebay and no matter what she said it is still her property.

Maria has taken umbrage over the slur of her shed and wants to keep the parcel
But this is because she knows what the contents are.

The parcel was addressed so there is no mistake who it was supposed to have it.The parcel legally belongs to Jill, this problem has been in the courts earlier this year but have been unable to find it. Both have a responsibility to ensure that the person should receive their parcel.

I suggest as there is bad feeling in this that you or other approaches Jill and asks if she wants the parcel or would accept a payment instead to her or a charity to end this.
Alternatively, you could take the cowards way out and re wrap the parcel and re post it to Jill, oh and remember tell Maria not to accept it on Jills behalf.

Has no one got the balls to just take the bloody parcel over to Jill.

cabby


----------



## Yaxley (Jul 25, 2008)

Put the parcel back in the shed.
Take a photograph of it in the shed.
Put the photo and a notice on facebook that the owner can collect it from the shed at any time.
Ian


----------



## chasper (Apr 20, 2008)

Don't you just love "social media"


----------



## Brock (Jun 14, 2005)

If I was Maria, I'd get a lock on the garden shed. Had she done that before Christmas, she wouldn't have received the parcel.

In similar circumstances where my neighbour was crossed off my Christmas Card list following an incident last year, I still took in a parcel for them and took it across to their house when they came home from work. Even exchanged Christmas cards with them this year.

I don't think it's about the law, it is about a person's integrity. Maria doesn't need to drop her standards just to look as knickerless as Jill. It's unbecoming unless she is a lady of the night or a binge drinker.

My son, who does deliveries, says it'll be down to the terms and conditions of carriage and what delivery instructions were given [or not given]. Likely to be DHL's fault but if Maria takes no action, and keeps the parcel contents, then she could be charged with theft. He suggests Maria could report it to the Police as a suspicious parcel and let the fun start [THAT'S A JOKE AND NOT SENSIBLE ADVICE].


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

tirn the other cheek etc is meant to protect the one who is harmed not the other way round 

What a childish mess 

Is Jill really so bored that she gets power from withholding a parcel

If so

Maybe she could clean out the shed

And post a picture on face book

To equally bored people out there 

Does she really believe people really care about the state of her shed??

Does she?

Aldra


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

I'd just take the box round and say nothing, to otherwise is at least morally theft.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Below is the legal definition of theft, make your own mind up if the circumstances detailed fit the definition.

A person commits theft if they. "Dishonestly appropriate the property of another with the intention of permanently the other of it" 

So let's dissect this incident. 

Has any property been "dishonestly appropriated"? Yes!

Maria has retained possession of property that she knows actually belongs to someone else, she knows who that person is yet has not taken any steps to unite her with the property, so she has clearly dishonestly appropriated that property (the parcel) she has not even contacted the delivery company to say it was left at the wrong address. It cannot be seen as anything other than a "dishonest appropriation" can it? 

Is there an intention to permanently deprive? Again yes!

Well she has retained it for a considerable period of time so it's reasonable to assume that intention and that's the view that the Police, CPS, and any subsequent court would adopt.

It's not difficult to come to a legal conclusion is it?

So members of the jury, I would submit that, taking into account the definition of theft, the actions of the defendant Maria, she has, without a doubt, committed the offence of theft.

Joking apart, if I was still a copper and Jill approached me with the above story I would be duty bound to arrest Maria for theft! 

I have given my view on the LEGAL position, I am confident that, having dealt with such things for thirty years, my analysis of the situation is legally correct.

It is no different to theft by finding, if you find a wallet and it has a driving licence or something similar in it to identify the owner yet you retain it, you commit theft, it's been decided in many courts over time.

Morally I also feel that Maria's actions are reprehensible, she has NO RIGHT to retain it.

Andy


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

All I can say is Im glad we have good neighbours. Mine mows my lawn, sorts the post and moves my car if required. Use it as an excuse / reason to make amends I reckon. Olive branch and all that.


----------



## chilly (Apr 20, 2007)

Hi, it's "Jack" here.

Where's my bleedin' Crimbo pressie? :wink2:


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> It is no different to theft by finding, if you find a wallet and it has a driving licence or something similar in it to identify the owner yet you retain it, you commit theft, it's been decided in many courts over time.
> 
> Andy


That would seem to imply that you must hand such a find in only if for instance "you find a wallet and it has a driving licence or something similar in it to identify the owner"?

Though I'm not legally qualified, like you Andy, I don't think the lack of documents or other clues as to who the owner might be makes keeping any such find legal.


----------



## Geriatricbackpacker (Aug 21, 2012)

Not going to go into the social aspects of the incident as I think it can cloud the legality of the retention (I am aware of Maria's circumstances and the problems they have had with Jack and Jill)

I would maintain that DHL is still the owner of the property (we don't know if they have replaced the item or given a refund), Maria should inform them that they have had a parcel delivered to them that they didn't order. This will remove the dishonest aspect of the appropriation and therefore there cannot be a case of theft as all the aspects of the act have to be in place. It would be reasonable to expect DHL to make arrangements for the parcel to be returned back to their depot. Maria should ensure that the notification to DHL is recorded in some tangible format should there ever be a need to show it to a third party. 


Gordon, give me a ring (before Wednesday as we are off to Goa) if you want to discuss further.

Terry


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Erneboy

You are absolutely correct in what you are saying BUT there is, in law, NO requirement for you to hand lost property into the Police, they have however over the years taken on that role voluntarily (most forces will now no longer accept any found item for safe keeping, they will take details and subsequently advise the loser, if they can be identified, of its whereabouts. Its safety is the finders responsibility) 

The "found" item will always technically be the property of the loser, if an insurance company pays out for its loss then the insurers then become the legal owner. (Think stolen cars) 

Thats why such things as HPI exist, if you buy a car (or of course Motor Home) that at sometime in the future turns out to be stolen then it is NOT YOUR PROPERTY and the rightful owner is entitled to have it back and you are entitled to NOTHING! (Yes really!) And it happens a lot more than you would think. It doesnt matter if the VIN number etc has been changed or if its a "clone" even, thats why its a good idea to buy from a reputable dealer as in such circumstances it is incumbent on them to assess the veracity and identity of any vehicle they sell.

Any finder is required to take "All reasonable steps" to re-unite found property with its rightful owner. In the case of a wallet with owners details in it then failure to make all reasonable efforts (notifying the police for instance) to advise the loser of its whereabouts amounts to, will be (and has been on many occasions) prosecuted as theft (by finding) I didnt make the law, just enforce it.

Notifying the Police and providing accurate information (not changing significant details like location of find or serial number etc) of any find is deemed as taking "All reasonable steps" HOWEVER if at any future time the rightful owner is identified then that property must technically be returned to them as it remains their property in perpetuity Even if its years later (Thats the "technical" position, practice is somewhat different of course)

I hope that clarifies things a bit?

In these circumstances there can be no doubt about the illegality of its retention by Maria. 

Andy


----------



## H1-GBV (Feb 28, 2006)

Geriatricbackpacker said:


> Not going to go into the social aspects of the incident as I think it can cloud the legality of the retention (I am aware of Maria's circumstances and the problems they have had with Jack and Jill)
> 
> Gordon, give me a ring (before Wednesday as we are off to Goa) if you want to discuss further.
> 
> Terry


Thanks Terry.

I thought you were going to Goa BEFORE Xmas, although Nick reckoned you were still around. I KNEW you would identify the folk involved and I respect your (& MrPlod's) information regarding the legality of the situation. Given that Jill works for the Police (as a civilian) I think it needs resolving swiftly, but you know how stubborn Maria can be (and how awkward Jill can get!).

I will give her a copy of this thread on Tuesday and hopefully she will do "the right thing". 0

Have a good trip and please give me a ring when you get back, as I need another pair of hands and eyes on a repair job. :surprise:

Thanks all - Gordon

(I shall consider this closed now.) Thanks again.


----------

