Rant......and a question..

Carter64

Carter64

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,256
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
My 125 commuter motorbike gets stolen. My only means of transport, my only way to make up my just recently slashed working hours to get to other sites to pick up extra shifts. £250 of damage. Arrests, court, convicted. I'm 'awarded' £50 compensation. That's not just derisory, that's an insult. Where's the other £200 coming from? I'm now on 30hrs at 4p above Nat Min wage. Surely justice would be to restore my property in full? The rate is set by ability to pay. What about the victims ability to pay? How about making the thief sell his tidy 5-door hatch (with nice alloys) to pay?
The bike wasn't insured, it was in a locked compound on SORN for the winter. Re-insuring and taxing would be a paperwork over the post-office counter formality.
Rant over, (that feels a bit better!) now a question:
Is there any mechanism whereby I can appeal, or take further action to recover the deficit?
 
'Crime doesn't pay' ... yeah right!
Sorry to hear of your plight, it doesn't do much to restore faith in justice does it?
A civil claim might be a possibility but it might also be the road to further costs ... Neil is right, even if it's off road, if it has value it should be insured.
 
I'd try citizen's advice bureau and see what they suggest. You may be able to do small claims action via money claim online to get your costs back.

If you have something which is essential to you earning money you have it insured. The money you didn't pay out to insure it will cover your loss. Maybe that's why you only got £50?
 
Carter64 said:
My 125 commuter motorbike gets stolen. My only means of transport, my only way to make up my just recently slashed working hours to get to other sites to pick up extra shifts. £250 of damage. Arrests, court, convicted. I'm 'awarded' £50 compensation. That's not just derisory, that's an insult. Where's the other £200 coming from? I'm now on 30hrs at 4p above Nat Min wage. Surely justice would be to restore my property in full? The rate is set by ability to pay. What about the victims ability to pay? How about making the thief sell his tidy 5-door hatch (with nice alloys) to pay?
The bike wasn't insured, it was in a locked compound on SORN for the winter. Re-insuring and taxing would be a paperwork over the post-office counter formality.
Rant over, (that feels a bit better!) now a question:
Is there any mechanism whereby I can appeal, or take further action to recover the deficit?
Click to expand...

Sorry I may have missed a vital point here. Your only means of transport? And it was not insured. Call me dumb but how were you getting to work then?
 
Sorry, I am with the OP here.

Why should the thieving scum NOT have to pay to ensure he is not out of pocket? Whether it is insured or not should not come into it.

CAB should be able to enlighten you on your options.
 
Tigger.ufo said:
Sorry, I am with the OP here.

Why should the thieving scum NOT have to pay to ensure he is not out of pocket? Whether it is insured or not should not come into it.
Click to expand...

I agree totally - I have been in a similar situation and lost out big time while the guilty party benefited.
It seems wrong to me, totally unfair.
 
With respect even with a sorn you should have had theft insurance cover, it wouldnt have been a lot, lesson learnt I guess and unfortunately one we often have to learn the hard way. That's not to say the compensation the criminal was ordered to pay should not reflect your actual costs, of course they should and buy not doing so the Magistrate has made a mockery of the Law.
 
I blame the Police, gotta be their fault:rolleyes::cool:
 
BRASH said:
I blame the Police, gotta be their fault:rolleyes::cool:
Click to expand...
Of course it was, it wasnt his first offence obviously, so they should have given him a good kicking so he wouldnt do it again, be un-insured I mean :)
 
BRASH said:
I blame the Police, gotta be their fault:rolleyes::cool:
Click to expand...
Probably not this time, sounds like they actually caught a "proper" criminal on this occasion, rather than someone doing 32 in a 30 limit ;)
 
onomatopoeia said:
Probably not this time, sounds like they actually caught a "proper" criminal on this occasion, rather than someone doing 32 in a 30 limit ;)
Click to expand...
When you hit the brakes at 30mph full on the distance you stop is say, 20 mtrs. If your doing 32mph the point where you came to a standstill at 30mph you'd still be doing 8mph, its nearly 20mph at the same point if your doing 35. Its 30 for a reason.

Steve
 
small claims against the theif won't cost much - but if he's a sponging scum bag chances are a court won't make him pay , or they''l make him pay something stupid like £2 per week for 2 years.
 
jakeblu said:
When you hit the brakes at 30mph full on the distance you stop is say, 20 mtrs. If your doing 32mph the point where you came to a standstill at 30mph you'd still be doing 8mph, its nearly 20mph at the same point if your doing 35. Its 30 for a reason.

Steve
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying; however, it would pack a bigger punch if you weren't taking a stab in the dark regarding the 20m stopping distance.
 
u8myufo said:
Sorry I may have missed a vital point here. Your only means of transport? And it was not insured. Call me dumb but how were you getting to work then?
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, I can see where I wasn't clear. Up until my hours were cut, I didn't need it to get to work. I can/could have picked up extra shifts on other more distant sites, if I had transport.

As to having it insured against theft, yes, with hindsight. Maybe: the excess would be more than my loss. I'm not naive enough to think that it was never at risk, but being in a locked compound, metal roller shutters operated by coded radio fob and covered 24hr by CCTV, I felt the risk was managed reasonably well.
 
MatBin said:
With respect even with a sorn you should have had theft insurance cover
Click to expand...

I suspect he only had third party cover.

The trial was to punish the thief for the crime of stealing the bike, not to reimburse the OP.

He will need to claim that himself. If he had comprehensive insurance, it would have paid out, then the insurance company would try to recoup their loss from the thief. Without comprehensive cover, you have to do that yourself.

onomatopoeia said:
Probably not this time, sounds like they actually caught a "proper" criminal on this occasion, rather than someone doing 32 in a 30 limit
Click to expand...

That is a 'proper' criminal. Speeding is a criminal offence and as there are about 1,000 deaths per year attributed to speeding, it quite rightfully is clamped down on by the police.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
The trial was to punish the thief for the crime of stealing the bike, not to reimburse the OP.

He will need to claim that himself. Steve.
Click to expand...
So now that he (actually 'they', there were two) has been convicted in a criminal court, I could talk to a solicitor about a civil claim?
 
an avenue you could take if the thief was under 18 years of age ( classed as a minor ) you could invoice the parents for the damage and then go to small claims if they don't pay
not ideal i know but it's an option
if the thief is over 18 then the chances are your stuffed even taking him to small claims and winning doesn't guarantee you get paid
 
Carter64 said:
So now that he (actually 'they', there were two) has been convicted in a criminal court, I could talk to a solicitor about a civil claim?
Click to expand...

You don't want to waste money on a solicitor as that will probably cost more than you are claiming and you can't use one for a small claims case anyway.
See if you can find a local solicitor who will give the first half hour of advice free. Many do. And speak to the Citizens' Advice Bureau.


Steve.
 
onomatopoeia said:
Probably not this time, sounds like they actually caught a "proper" criminal on this occasion, rather than someone doing 32 in a 30 limit ;)
Click to expand...

Very few places would see 32 in a 30 prosecuted, although Avon & Somerset are reputed to be rather inflexible! 32 on the clock is likely to be closer to 30 actual. Did a check using GPS against my car's speedo yesterday - at a GPS 70, the speedo reads 74.
 
Carter64 said:
My only means of transport, my only way to make up my just recently slashed working hours to get to other sites to pick up extra shifts.
Snip
The bike wasn't insured, it was in a locked compound on SORN for the winter.
Click to expand...

Which is it? if you want the sympathy vote for the first statement you can't have the second.

Anyway, it's not fair to you but it's not up to the criminal court to reimburse you for your loss, you need to sue the perp for damages, loss etc.
 
Steep said:
it's not fair to you but it's not up to the criminal court to reimburse you for your loss, you need to sue the perp for damages, loss etc.
Click to expand...

In the OP's favour is the fact that the thieves have been convicted so he doesn't have to try to prove that.


Steve.
 
viv1969 said:
I get what you're saying; however, it would pack a bigger punch if you weren't taking a stab in the dark regarding the 20m stopping distance.
Click to expand...
I did type 'say' 20 mtrs :) Anyway the stopping distance is irrelevant for my example

Steve
 
jakeblu said:
When you hit the brakes at 30mph full on the distance you stop is say, 20 mtrs. If your doing 32mph the point where you came to a standstill at 30mph you'd still be doing 8mph, its nearly 20mph at the same point if your doing 35. Its 30 for a reason.
Click to expand...
Steve Smith said:
That is a 'proper' criminal. Speeding is a criminal offence and as there are about 1,000 deaths per year attributed to speeding, it quite rightfully is clamped down on by the police.
Click to expand...
:facepalm::rolleyes::banghead:
You should take what I wrote exactly as seriously as you should take the post I quoted (given who wrote it)
 
LOL! I can't believe the number of people taking your "32 in a 30" post so seriously!
 
Mitch78 said:
LOL! I can't believe the number of people taking your "32 in a 30" post so seriously!
Click to expand...

well exactly!! Afterall, his figures are thrown totally into disarray depending on whether I am driving my 1985 Mini at 29mph or my 2010 Megane at 32 mph... :wave::naughty:
 
Steep said:
Which is it? if you want the sympathy vote for the first statement you can't have the second.
Click to expand...
Not included for sympathy, more for context. Even the amounts are arbitrary, be it £200 or £20,000, it's out of my reach right now.

The main point being:

Surely justice would be to restore my property in full?

This should be regardless of whether I was insured or not. Insurance is starting to sound like an excuse for theft and that I am the one who is at fault.

Steep said:
Anyway, it's not fair to you but it's not up to the criminal court to reimburse you for your loss, you need to sue the perp for damages, loss etc.
Click to expand...
Thanks, this is more useful :)

Steve Smith said:
In the OP's favour is the fact that the thieves have been convicted so he doesn't have to try to prove that.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Steve, and for your other posts. All useful to me to decide whether to write it off as not worth the cost. Regardless, as above, it's galling and is having a massive negative impact.
 
Who owns the compound where the bike was stored? Can't you claim off their insurance?
 
Mag1cp2x said:
The first rule of Civil Law is never ever sue someone who does not have any assets. Be completely sure that the other party has the ability to pay should your contention be upheld.
Click to expand...

I think a vehicle was mentioned which is possibly an asset?
 
Yv said:
well exactly!! Afterall, his figures are thrown totally into disarray depending on whether I am driving my 1985 Mini at 29mph or my 2010 Megane at 32 mph... :wave::naughty:
Click to expand...
Your right the figures I quoted relate to a police car tested with all the latest braking aids. Your stopping distance on your mini will obviousy be longer as would the megan. I do know that stopping distances are dependent on a number of things including tyre tread and weather conditions etc my example is a best case scenario. So considering that I dont see how your post has any relevance regarding speeding in built up areas its still dangerous and the excuse that well my megan is safer at 32 than my mini at 29 is frankly a poor point to make, yes I do know you were trying to make a point, its just the relevance of the point that eludes me. I do realise now that the original comment regarding the 32mph was meant as a dig at a poster regarding previous posts but it still is pretty insensitive especially regarding the number of deaths and serious injuries to children on the roads.

Have we forgotten this ad so soon or is it just a case of 'it wont happen to me'


Steve
 
Yv said:
well exactly!! Afterall, his figures are thrown totally into disarray depending on whether I am driving my 1985 Mini at 29mph or my 2010 Megane at 32 mph... :wave::naughty:
Click to expand...

Since when has Tiddles been driven, let alone at 29mph?!
 
Tigger.ufo said:
I think a vehicle was mentioned which is possibly an asset?
Click to expand...

That vehicle was and remains the victim's property.
Presumably the offender has disposed of the property because the vehicle was not returned to the victim and the £50* was awarded as compensation for its loss - (an inadequate sum in the opinion of the victim).
The property in the vehicle was not transferred to the guilty party when he stole it and it certainly did not become an asset of his (or hers).
Had the vehicle been recovered it almost certainly would have been returned to its rightful owner and, presumably, as well as him being awarded compensation.
No mention is made of what punishment was handed down to the guilty party.
*I surmise that £50 was the market value of the vehicle rather than what it was worth to the victim. Had it been insured the company would only have paid out its market value regardless of how much the owner had declared its value to be.
(I'm off for a lie down).
 
Mag1cp2x said:
That vehicle was and remains the victim's property.
Click to expand...

From the original post!

"How about making the thief sell his tidy 5-door hatch (with nice alloys) to pay?"

....and I think it is entirely fair that thieving scum should be deprived of their property to compensate their victims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top