Theft Act tumped by tenant deposit?

[property mongrel]

Hi All

I wonder whether anyone would be kind enough to answer a question for me please? Does taking a deposit make the Theft Act void where a tenant steals property? No.
I ask because when a tenant absconded How did they abscond, under what circumstances? taking with her my furniture, the police refused to act if there was a deposit. They said that the deposit is there for the eventuality of theft as much as damage. I suspect the deposit scheme holders will have a view on this? I think they are misundersanding the function of the deposit. If you accept their assertion that the deposit was to "insure" or "compensate" you against theft by a T then the deposit would have to cover the cost of all fixtures fittings and furnishings.

They said that if there was no deposit they COULD pursue the matter as theft. The police can pursue, follow up and investigate any allegation of theft but in some cases where matters may be less than simple or clear cut, some of them do not know what to do.

I find it absurd that a civil contract could render the theft act ineffective and suspect that the police might well be trying it on. They may genuinely not know what they are doing?

Can anyone provide the definitive answer please?

Vizard

Section 1, Theft Act 1968 has several components, s2 - s6, all of which must be satisfied. If any one component is not satisfied then there is no theft in law capable of proof. Have a look at it and you will see. On the facts presented here it appears to be a theft.

I would attend the police station with a letter to the Police, making the allegation again in writing explaining why you think a theft has been committed, citing each of s2 to s6 of the act. I would report the allegation again and see what they do? If they do not accept the allegation and take action then ask for an explanantion in writing in response to your letter. Had the Police acted on your initial report it may well be that your property may have been recovered by now.

pm

[Lawcruncher]

Sounds like nonsense to me. Paying a deposit does not give a tenant the right to chose belongings of the landlord to the value of the deposit. It is like saying that if someone owes you money you have a right to burgle their house. Whether there is theft or not depends on whether the criteria set out in the Theft Act 1968 are met.

The police cannot escape the logic of their own statement. If a deposit is to cover theft, it must follow that there can be theft where a deposit is paid.

[Vizard1]

The deposit doesn't cover it, no.

[thesaint]

I don't know the answer to the question, but did they ask, or did you tell them what the contract states with regards to the deposit, and what it can be used for?

I assume the deposit doesn't cover the amount they owe?

[Vizard1]

Hi All

I wonder whether anyone would be kind enough to answer a question for me please? Does taking a deposit make the Theft Act void where a tenant steals property?

I ask because when a tenant absconded, taking with her my furniture, the police refused to act if there was a deposit. They said that the deposit is there for the eventuality of theft as much as damage.

They said that if there was no deposit they COULD pursue the matter as theft.

I find it absurd that a civil contract could render the theft act ineffective and suspect that the police might well be trying it on.

Can anyone provide the definitive answer please?

Vizard