E
EddieM
Wrong! Very badly wrong.
Where's JD to tell us that there is nothing to report and that the journalist has made it all up? 
In this case your contract would have been with the builder, not the home owner. So this is nothing other than trespass and theft.
You would think they could have spoken to the home owner first at least!
N
Newboy
I don't disagree about talking to the homeowner but as far as theft goes - if the window company has title to the goods then it isn't theft - the definition of theft is the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of their property. My best guess would be that, in law, the window company were still the legal owner of the windows.
I feel for the homeowner (assuming that the full facts were reported by the media) but it wouldn't be the first time that somebody had paid the 'builder' in full but the 'builder' had failed to pay the suppliers and subbies.
N
Newboy
Care to explain?
Uh uh.
The windows where on private propery. A contract with the builder (who does not own the site) does not trump law on tresspass = Criminal act.
Lets say I go to sofaland and buy a chair, but I stop making payments. The shop has to apply to various legal institutions or jump through hoops before they, or bailiffs, can enter my property to reclaim their items. Otherwise they are commiting a criminal offense.
Can't understand why the police are coming to the conclusion they have.
Part of the risk of doing business is builders or customers not paying, which is why you do credit checks or ask for payment in advance. Contracts are to protect you agains shenannigans, not to allow you to simply do as you wish.
N
Newboy
I don't disagree about trespass - although interpretation of the difference between criminal & civil trespass could keep lawyers busy for hours.
I'm sure you've noticed that I haven't disputed the trespass angle only damage and theft..
As I said before I feel for the householder (assuming the full facts have been reported) and I'm surprised it got to this stage.
I'm sure you've noticed that I haven't disputed the trespass angle only damage and theft..
As I said before I feel for the householder (assuming the full facts have been reported) and I'm surprised it got to this stage.
N
Newboy
I would suspect because they cannot see that a crime has been committed!
E
EddieM
It's about contractual law. The homeowner had a contract with the builder to install windows for which the builder was paid the builder had a contract with the window company (subcontractor) to supply and fit the windows. The homeowner had no contract with the subcontractor.
The subcontractor has made a criminal breach of the law (criminal damage and tresspass), as their redress was solely with the builder not the homeowner. You wouldn't expect a dairy to break into your house to get their pint of milk back because tesco hadn't paid them would you, its exactly the same principle.
The subcontractor has made a criminal breach of the law (criminal damage and tresspass), as their redress was solely with the builder not the homeowner. You wouldn't expect a dairy to break into your house to get their pint of milk back because tesco hadn't paid them would you, its exactly the same principle.
The way I see it.
The place is a building site. The building is detached from the house and in the possession of the builder until completed and handed over. The builder has not paid the window company. Why? They must have asked for payment more than once before acting as they did. The builders had been paid by their client(according to the client)so why not pay the window company.
There was a contract between the builder and the window company. One side kept to the contract the other side did not. The removal of the windows and door could be carried out without causing any damage and probably was. If they had not been paid by the builder then the contract had not been fulfilled so they could return to site and reclaim their goods. No theft. No criminal damage. No trespass.
The place is a building site. The building is detached from the house and in the possession of the builder until completed and handed over. The builder has not paid the window company. Why? They must have asked for payment more than once before acting as they did. The builders had been paid by their client(according to the client)so why not pay the window company.
There was a contract between the builder and the window company. One side kept to the contract the other side did not. The removal of the windows and door could be carried out without causing any damage and probably was. If they had not been paid by the builder then the contract had not been fulfilled so they could return to site and reclaim their goods. No theft. No criminal damage. No trespass.
You lot may laugh, but I'm still struggling to see how come those windows/ doors were worth 14K 
N
Newboy
Well the police see it differently - perhaps you might like to call them and point out their error.
As an aside, in a not dissimilar situation albeit on commercial premises, I explained the situation and showed the relevant documentation to a police constable & sergeant before slapping a retention of title on for unpaid for equipment. I can assure you that I was not arrested , the retention of title claim was successful and the outstanding monies were forthcoming.
N
Newboy
The major difference in your scenario is that title in the chair passed to you and you are, in law, the legal owner of the chair- and you borrowed money through a finance company to pay for it. To seize goods to pay the debt requires either a county or high court order.
In the old days of Hire/Purchase right up until the last payment was made the finance company could turn up and take the item back because until you made the final payment the goods were still theirs - you'd hired them until you purchased them in full.
N
Newboy
Take another arguably unfair example.
You buy a car from somebody through legal channels.
The car turns out to be stolen or have outstanding finance on it.
The car will be taken from you and your claim is against the person who sold it to you.
The car can be taken from you because it is owned by another person regardless of the fact you've paid somebody for it.
The person who took your money did not have the title to the car even though they had the physical car.
You buy a car from somebody through legal channels.
The car turns out to be stolen or have outstanding finance on it.
The car will be taken from you and your claim is against the person who sold it to you.
The car can be taken from you because it is owned by another person regardless of the fact you've paid somebody for it.
The person who took your money did not have the title to the car even though they had the physical car.
stolen goods are a different thing entirely, and the police will take them is simply because they are stolen goods, nothing to do with titles.
her windows were not stolen goods, in fact she had paid for them in full to someone who DID have the right to sell them to her, but had failed to settle his bill.
I also think that if your retention of title claim is as successful as you claim, it has more to do with how effective the other party perceive it to be, thus folding their hand straight away, rather than how effective it actually is.
her windows were not stolen goods, in fact she had paid for them in full to someone who DID have the right to sell them to her, but had failed to settle his bill.
I also think that if your retention of title claim is as successful as you claim, it has more to do with how effective the other party perceive it to be, thus folding their hand straight away, rather than how effective it actually is.
