ebay problem and getting police involved

[anything I don't mind]

You have the guys address so send him an email and let him know that if he doesn't post it about a certain date you are going to come around to the address with the police. I agree with arknor, you should have paid for a courier to collect it. Putting the onus on to him to send it was always recipe for problems.

I think it may just be that the guy has been too lazy to post the phone. For people that dont do a lot of post it can be quite a task to post something.

 

[AtreuS]

Completely untrue, have you ever actually gone to the police with a matter like this as it sounds like you are talkin out of your bum

OP you should go to the police if you have not already.

Something very similar yes, and i got told that unless it was a break in or mugging etc then they would not investigate unless i had "firm evidence"... this rather vague statement seems to mean something that makes the case 100% secure and easy for them to deal with.

Maybe the op will get lucky and find a copper who will help.. he will probably get fobbed off at the desk like the rest of us

The problem with this sort of thing is that the police could be told by the accused thief "no mate... he phoned me and said i could keep it". This makes the only place to decide a court, and because of the lack of evidence it would have to be a civil case not a criminal one.

If the guy had broken into the ops house and stolen it then physical evidence exists and a case can be brought with criminal charges filed.

A dispute over a phone on ebay? doubtful unless the OP has a recorded video of the guy admitting he is stealing it... and giving permission to be filmed! a phone conversation cant be used as the other person could be anyone pretending to be them.

The whole system works around probable success of the prosecution, and in this instance the evidence is very circumstantial and easily fabricated. Its sad but true.

 

[gambitt]

A dispute over a phone on ebay? doubtful unless the OP has a recorded video of the guy admitting he is stealing it... and giving permission to be filmed! a phone conversation cant be used as the other person could be anyone pretending to be them.

What a lot of nonsense. OP has already said that the guy admitted in writing that he would return it:

I immediately contacted the buyer who seemed ok, now reading back he was only interested in finding out when the graphics card would arrive, but did agree to send the phone on to the correct address if I paid him the postage.!

 

[AtreuS]

What a lot of nonsense. OP has already said that the guy admitted in writing that he would return it:

Not nonsense at all.... I did jury duty in january last year where a judge in manchester crown court pretty much summed up as much in a case i sat on. Of course you know more than he does i am quite sure

In writing or email... ? i suspect the latter in which case.... again not admissible. A hand written letter from the suspect can be used as evidence but again its circumstantial as the letter cannot be proved 100% to have been written by the accused. An expert can pass an opinion of how likely it was to be them but it is not always so clean cut. ( again the case i sat on involved emails.. letters... txt messages and recorded phone calls, most of which were not allowed by the judge. )

I had always assumed that txt messages were an ok form of proof but the judge would not allow them because it cannot be determined that the accused was the one sending and receiving the messages, only that their phone was used... or their SIM card was used. Most of the case hinged around the use of email and txt messages and a lot of the evidence was simply disallowed by the judge. The same went for emails... the only thing you can prove is that they originated on the computer owned by the accused, NOT that the accused wrote them.

The op would have a fairly strong case in a civil court in front of magistrates but a criminal case the CPS would not bother... its as simple as that.

 

[gambitt]

Not nonsense at all.... I did jury duty in january last year where a judge in manchester crown court pretty much summed up as much in a case i sat on. Of course you know more than he does i am quite sure

In writing or email... ? i suspect the latter in which case.... again not admissible. A hand written letter from the suspect can be used as evidence but again its circumstantial as the letter cannot be proved 100% to have been written by the accused. An expert can pass an opinion of how likely it was to be them but it is not always so clean cut. ( again the case i sat on involved emails.. letters... txt messages and recorded phone calls, most of which were not allowed by the judge. )

I had always assumed that txt messages were an ok form of proof but the judge would not allow them because it cannot be determined that the accused was the one sending and receiving the messages, only that their phone was used... or their SIM card was used. Most of the case hinged around the use of email and txt messages and a lot of the evidence was simply disallowed by the judge. The same went for emails... the only thing you can prove is that they originated on the computer owned by the accused, NOT that the accused wrote them.

The op would have a fairly strong case in a civil court in front of magistrates but a criminal case the CPS would not bother... its as simple as that.

Nonsense. I gave evidence at Crown Court for a guy who ripped off loads of people (including me) to the tune of £20k. He got 3 years in prison and I didn't get my £800 back. Communication between all parties was via email.

 

[AtreuS]

Nonsense. I gave evidence at Crown Court for a guy who ripped off loads of people (including me) to the tune of £20k. He got 3 years in prison and I didn't get my £800 back. Communication between all parties was via email.

Well unless there was other evidence it just goes to show the law is an ass! The judge in my case was quite clear on it all.

You come over as rather agressive dude.

My experience is not "nonsense" it is what happened in a crown court.

 

[A2Z]

In writing or email... ? i suspect the latter in which case.... again not admissible.

Erm the police were very happy to use email as evidence when I showed them someone who had scammed me after I sent them money for a purchase and they never sent it to me and were very happy to pursue my claim and attempt to call the person and pay him a visit so yes you do seem to be talking quite a lot of nonsense.

 

[cyber69]

I think the main point which divides us is the 'will they / wont they' attitude of the police when the OP visits them.

I personally think the police will dismiss it as a civil matter especially as the OP admits he posted it to him in error but let's wait and see.

 

[glenimp617]

The buyer of the phone was happy to wait for it to be resolved. Nexus 4 was 100% pristine and they really wanted it.

When they said about a refund, they said see if you can find out anymore and if not refund me. That's what I did.

 

[Lartyconshayo]

You've got his address, and you're obviously concerned something's happened to him - he might have collapsed in his house or something. I'd advise popping over to check. You might need to take a crowbar to smash his face in pry his door open in case he's unconscious though.

Of course - how community spirited of you

 

[Energize]

Well unless there was other evidence it just goes to show the law is an ass! The judge in my case was quite clear on it all.

It's quite common for text messages, typed letters, emails and telephone calls to be used as evidence in courts, that's why most companies record telephone calls. I suggest you misunderstood what the judge said or don't recall it properly.

 

[AtreuS]

It's quite common for text messages, typed letters, emails and telephone calls to be used as evidence in courts, that's why most companies record telephone calls. I suggest you misunderstood what the judge said or don't recall it properly.

No he was quite clear on the subject. Companies can use them as they clearly state the call is recorded and by speaking you agree, this is not the case. Any evidence from media such as discussed can only be used if both parties agree, and even than the evidence is only viewed as circumstantial and the jury so instructed. As it happens in the case i was talking about the jury did not make a decision based on it but on other evidence.

if i was to steal a mobile phone and message someone and threatened to kill them, the owner of the phone is guilty right?.... this is why it is treated as low value evidence.

I really dont know why people have to start saying nonsense and dismissing things just because they had a differing experiance... i wont lose sleep over it though, maybe i had an insane judge who didnt know the law and just made things up as he went ( possible actually hahaha ). Every case is different and in this case it is ONE person and ONE phone, not a serial scammer who has diddled hundreds of people. Of course in a case like that email and txt evidence can be used more easily as a pattern emerges and hundreds of emails would be much harder to fake etc

I think the main issue is how the police will view it and only one way to find that out!

 

[Energize]

No he was quite clear on the subject. Companies can use them as they clearly state the call is recorded and by speaking you agree, this is not the case. Any evidence from media such as discussed can only be used if both parties agree, and even than the evidence is only viewed as circumstantial and the jury so instructed. As it happens in the case i was talking about the jury did not make a decision based on it but on other evidence.

if i was to steal a mobile phone and message someone and threatened to kill them, the owner of the phone is guilty right?

No, where did you get that idea from? The person who makes the threats is guilty of assault. Just as when someone steals a car and causes criminal damage or injury, the owner is not responsible...

Individuals are not responsible for others criminal misuse of their property.

 

[AtreuS]

No, where did you get that idea from? The person who makes the threats is guilty of assault. Just as when someone steals a car and causes criminal damage or injury, the owner is not responsible...

Individuals are not responsible for others criminal misuse of their property.

*woosh* i think that went over youre head.... had one too many tonight eh

im saying that the judge pointed out that just because a message came from a persons phone doesnt mean it was the person who sent it.... i was giving an example. ( maybe i should have pointed out i was being sarcastic )

You cannot just use a txt or an email and say 100% it was the owner who did it. Exactly why i was trying to suggest that one simple email would not be proof and would not be used in a criminal case.

 

[arknor]

You've got his address, and you're obviously concerned something's happened to him - he might have collapsed in his house or something. I'd advise popping over to check. You might need to take a crowbar to smash his face in pry his door open in case he's unconscious though.

Not sure if 5 year prison sentence or a good idea

 

[Energize]

You cannot just use a txt or an email and say 100% it was the owner who did it. Exactly why i was trying to suggest that one simple email would not be proof and would not be used in a criminal case.

No you can't always prove it if one party is denying it, but often both parties will admit that the communication between them was genuine, which makes it allowable.

 

[deuse]

Any update?

 

[Burnsy2023]

No you can't always prove it if one party is denying it, but often both parties will admit that the communication between them was genuine, which makes it allowable.

Indeed, it depends on the case and what people accept as fact, but text messages and email are commonly used to convict people. The method of communication isn't the issue per se.

 

[glenimp617]

No update yet, I spent the weekend printing out the ebay ads, ebay messages, paypal transactions, parcelforce tracking info etc etc etc

Just waiting for an email from parcelforce confirming where the phone was delivered to before going to see pc plod

Mum (good old mum) has said it's no problem getting one of the solicitors to send him a letter either.

Will have an update before the end of the week I would have thought

 

[glenimp617]

Update

Parcelforce has come back to me saying that the parcel was delivered to a neighbour, but due to the data protection act they are unable to tell me where it is. The website just says delivered, no address or anything. (a squiggle as a signature as well).

Since the buyer is not replying to any of my emails, there is nothing I can do.

I can't prove for a FACT where the phone is. The neighbour most likely dropped it round, but since I can't prove it I'm stumped.

The only thing I have in writing is that the buyer said he would send it on if I gave him postage money, not that he actually had it in his possession. Since he is not replying back to me, I can only think the worst.

Google tracking last reported the phone was on four weeks ago. Not sure if it looks at the IMEI, sim or user account?

Guess that's that then.