Police say not enough evidence to prosecute after tenants caused over £2500 of damage

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Police say not enough evidence to prosecute after tenants caused over £2500 of damage

    My now ex tenants (man & woman couple) phoned me to say they were moving out.

    They caused over £2500 of damage and stole items which took almost 6 weeks to rectify.

    The police came to see the flat and the damage which happened at the end of February 2017 and this is still ongoing.

    I provided the police with photos and the original inventory. This was passed around from the initial officer to 4 different sergeants and I was finally told there was not enough evidence to prosecute mainly because they sat that they can’t prove which one of the 2 tenants caused the damage.

    Now I believe the police have their methods of finding out which one did the damage but not in this case.

    I have told the police that if neither of them own up to the crime then one of them is harbouring a criminal and that basically the damage was caused by one of them if not both which is more likely and if neither of them admits to causing the damage & theft of the items in question then that is perverting the course of Justice?

    I made an official complaint and an inspector phoned me to discuss this and told me that my complaint is suitable for local resolution.

    Now I Googled about this and read that I should not accept local resolution and insist that a formal investigation is carried out.

    Any advice on what to do would be appreciated.

    Thank you in anticipation.

    #2
    Forget it and move on.

    The police are lazy and useless.

    Comment


      #3
      I think you would have to prove that the one who didn't do it could have stopped it for a successful joint enterprise prosecution.

      Comment


        #4
        The police are not lazy, they are underresourced and understaffed.

        I don't know how joint enterprise even come into it.

        You can't be guilty of harbouring someone that's not wanted. It's for the Crown to prove someone has committed an offence. It is not perverting the course of justice to not admit an offence, (that whole innocent until proven guilty thing ) and that is assuming they are even guilty of it in the first place.

        The police is right. They need sufficient evidence on who actually committed an offence. They can't just charge more than one person and say "one of them did it".

        You are of course free to follow through the complaints procedure and see where that take you. Have you sued the ex-tenant for the damages? Why not focus on that?
        I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

        Comment


          #5
          I'm confused -- why is this about the police prosecuting the tenants -- and not about you taking the tenant (both of them) to the "small claims" court for damages under their tenancy agreement. What is stopping you from doing this? If you have evidence why do you think you will not win (you might not because the courts can be equally useless, but surely this is your first step).

          Comment


            #6
            Agree:. Police won't prosecute, nothing to stop you suing. See what evidence you can drag out of Police: overworked poor sods.

            ​​​​​
            LBA today then small claims. See CaB website for how.
            I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

            Comment


              #7
              Simply not enough evidence. CPS would never charge. Civil court as above
              Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

              Comment


                #8
                There are cases where they can charge everyone, but this is not one of them, not least because there is no way of proving it was one of them, or that they saw it being done.

                The Steven Lawrence case is an example. They couldn't prove who stabbed him, but they could show that there was none of them were innocent bystanders.

                What you are generally up against is the "beyond reasonable doubt" test. That means if it could be either, each will make their defence that the other one did it, and there could be as much as a 50% chance that was true, which is far below beyond reasonable doubt.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Phil_northeast View Post

                  I have told the police that if neither of them own up to the crime then one of them is harbouring a criminal and that basically the damage was caused by one of them if not both which is more likely and if neither of them admits to causing the damage & theft of the items in question then that is perverting the course of Justice?
                  I love how you’re telling the Police the law 😂

                  Its a civil case. Sue them and move on.

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X