If someone parks their car on my land (in Wales) I can take action to get it 
removed but it is not mine.

If someone 'parks' a set of tyres on my land they become mine and I can deal 
with them in any way I see fit.

Why doesn't the car become mine, or do I have to wait a certain length of 
time?

 -- 
Mark BR

On Sat,  6 Sep 2008 07:40:11 +0100, Mark BR put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>If someone parks their car on my land (in Wales) I can take action to get it 
>removed but it is not mine.
>
>If someone 'parks' a set of tyres on my land they become mine and I can deal 
>with them in any way I see fit.
>
>Why doesn't the car become mine, or do I have to wait a certain length of 
>time?

The principle is the same in both cases. An item left on your premises
becomes yours if it has been deliberately abandoned by the former
owner, who has no intention of requiring it to be returned to his
posession. If the owner has merely left the item on your premises
temporarily (either deliberately or as the result of an oversight),
then it remains their property and they are entitled to retrieve it.
You also need to make a reasonable effort to locate the owner of the
item, where that is practical, in order to inform them that you have
it in your posession. 

If you take an item which has been left on your premises and treat it
as though it has become your own property, then you could be guilty of
theft by conversion unless you have reasonable grounds to believe that
the item has been abandoned by the previous owner, either deliberately
or as a result of failure to make reasonable effort to retrieve it. 

Once you have taken reasonable steps to locate the owner of an item,
and/or given them reasonable opportunity to collect it from your
premises, and a reasonable amount of time has passed without either of
these being successful, then you may claim the item as your own.

For large organisations (such as the railways, museums, theme parks,
etc), "reasonable opportunity" usually means running their own lost
property office where people can check for any items they may have
mislaid while on the premises. For small organisations and
individuals, it usually means taking the item to the police (or, if
it's too large for that to be practical, reporting it to the police
and allowing them to decide what to do with it). And, in most cases, a
reasonable time usually means six weeks.

The main difference between your two examples is simply that it's
usually far more obvious that a set of old tyres has been abandoned
than it is that a car has been abandoned, and it's easier to locate
the owner of a car than the owner of a set of tyres.

Mark
-- 
My rather pointless blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
My less pointless stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sat,  6 Sep 2008 07:40:11 +0100, Mark BR put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> If someone parks their car on my land (in Wales) I can take action
>> to get it removed but it is not mine.
>>
>> If someone 'parks' a set of tyres on my land they become mine and I
>> can deal with them in any way I see fit.
>>
>> Why doesn't the car become mine, or do I have to wait a certain
>> length of time?
>

--SNIP--

 For small organisations and
> individuals, it usually means taking the item to the police (or, if
> it's too large for that to be practical, reporting it to the police
> and allowing them to decide what to do with it). And, in most cases, a
> reasonable time usually means six weeks.
>
> The main difference between your two examples is simply that it's
> usually far more obvious that a set of old tyres has been abandoned
> than it is that a car has been abandoned, and it's easier to locate
> the owner of a car than the owner of a set of tyres.
>
> Mark

Thanks for the long and informative reply - just wonder what the police will 
do when I turn up with two tractor tyres?  (I know the reply!)

It just gets so anoying when people feel the right to park on my land and 
there is in reality not much I can do and the same people then dump tyres - 
but it is impossible to prove - and I have to pay to remove them.

With all the rain I'm just having a bad week end!

 -- 
Mark BR

On Sat,  6 Sep 2008 17:20:12 +0100, Mark BR put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>>
>> The main difference between your two examples is simply that it's
>> usually far more obvious that a set of old tyres has been abandoned
>> than it is that a car has been abandoned, and it's easier to locate
>> the owner of a car than the owner of a set of tyres.
>
>Thanks for the long and informative reply - just wonder what the police will 
>do when I turn up with two tractor tyres?  (I know the reply!)

They'll tell you to wait six weeks, and then if no-one has claimed
them they're yours :-)

>It just gets so anoying when people feel the right to park on my land and 
>there is in reality not much I can do and the same people then dump tyres - 
>but it is impossible to prove - and I have to pay to remove them.

You can do something about the parking - it's actually fairly easy to
arrange a penalty charge scheme that will deter the majority of
offenders. Take a look at the "Self ticketing" section of
http://www.nationalparkingcontrol.co.uk/ - an organisation that I know
uses this type of scheme, and it's surprisingly effective

I agree, though, that it is unfair that the victim of fly tipping is
expected to bear the cost of cleaning up. I wonder what the legal
position would be if you exercised your right to eject a trespassing
item from your premises by removing it to the nearest point on the
public highway?

Mark
-- 
My rather pointless blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
My less pointless stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Sep 6, 7:20 pm, "Mark BR"  wrote:
> Mark Goodge wrote:
> > On Sat,  6 Sep 2008 07:40:11 +0100, Mark BR put finger to keyboard and
> > typed:
>
> >> If someone parks their car on my land (in Wales) I can take action
> >> to get it removed but it is not mine.
>
> >> If someone 'parks' a set of tyres on my land they become mine and I
> >> can deal with them in any way I see fit.
>
> >> Why doesn't the car become mine, or do I have to wait a certain
> >> length of time?
>
> --SNIP--
>
>  For small organisations and
>
> > individuals, it usually means taking the item to the police (or, if
> > it's too large for that to be practical, reporting it to the police
> > and allowing them to decide what to do with it). And, in most cases, a
> > reasonable time usually means six weeks.
>
> > The main difference between your two examples is simply that it's
> > usually far more obvious that a set of old tyres has been abandoned
> > than it is that a car has been abandoned, and it's easier to locate
> > the owner of a car than the owner of a set of tyres.
>
> > Mark
>
> Thanks for the long and informative reply - just wonder what the police will
> do when I turn up with two tractor tyres?  (I know the reply!)
>
> It just gets so anoying when people feel the right to park on my land and
> there is in reality not much I can do and the same people then dump tyres -
> but it is impossible to prove - and I have to pay to remove them.
>
> With all the rain I'm just having a bad week end!
>
>  --
> Mark BR

I'd stay away from the police when it comes to lost property. When I
contacted the police to tell them that I had come into possession of a
lost/stolen mobile phone, I was told that I must hand it in, at which
point they would try to trace the owner, or else hand it back to the
manufacturer.

I did not agree that it should be returned to the manufacturer. I
insisted on holding on to it unless and until the owner was found
(perfectly legitimate), and as a result I was threatened with arrest
by no less than 2 constables, 1 sergeant, and was paid a personal
visit by 2 PCSO's.

The final insult was when a PC finished the conversation with words to
the effect of "expect to be arrested very soon", and then slammed the
phone down on me.

On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 19:10:05 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On Sep 6, 7:20 pm, "Mark BR"  wrote:
>>
>> It just gets so anoying when people feel the right to park on my land and
>> there is in reality not much I can do and the same people then dump tyres -
>> but it is impossible to prove - and I have to pay to remove them.
>>
>> With all the rain I'm just having a bad week end!
>
>I'd stay away from the police when it comes to lost property. When I
>contacted the police to tell them that I had come into possession of a
>lost/stolen mobile phone, I was told that I must hand it in, at which
>point they would try to trace the owner, or else hand it back to the
>manufacturer.

They're certainly right to say that you must hand it in. I'm not sure
why they think that returning it to the manufacturer is a suitable
alternative, unless that's specifically because it's a phone and the
manufacturers have the ability to trace the owner via the IMEA code
(which links it to a network and hence, hopefully, to a contract).

>I did not agree that it should be returned to the manufacturer. I
>insisted on holding on to it unless and until the owner was found
>(perfectly legitimate), 

No; once you've reported it to the police it's no longer your
responsibility and you have to do what they tell you to do with it. 

If you want to take responsibility for trying to trace the owner
yourself, then you can - you don't have to hand it over to the police.
But you can't do both - you either give it to the police and let them
do the work, or you hold on to it and do the work yourself.

Mark
-- 
My rather pointless blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
My less pointless stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

>>I did not agree that it should be returned to the manufacturer. I
>>insisted on holding on to it unless and until the owner was found
>>(perfectly legitimate),
>
> No; once you've reported it to the police it's no longer your
> responsibility and you have to do what they tell you to do with it.
>
> If you want to take responsibility for trying to trace the owner
> yourself, then you can - you don't have to hand it over to the police.
> But you can't do both - you either give it to the police and let them
> do the work, or you hold on to it and do the work yourself.


If its a good'un hand it in, after x-amount of time you get a letter telling 
you that it has not been claimed and thus it is yours and you have 28days to 
collect it, given that nobody seems to check with the police whine they lose 
a phone.

I have found a couple over the last few years and now they are mine!

I found £20 on the floor of a local co-op the other day, i handed it in at 
the counter, i wonder what my legal position is regarding that!


Tom

On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 21:50:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

> On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 19:10:05 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> I'd stay away from the police when it comes to lost property. When I
>> contacted the police to tell them that I had come into possession of a
>> lost/stolen mobile phone, I was told that I must hand it in, at which
>> point they would try to trace the owner, or else hand it back to the
>> manufacturer.
>
> They're certainly right to say that you must hand it in.

Must suggests the failure to do so amounts to an offence.  Please explain.

> No; once you've reported it to the police it's no longer your
> responsibility and you have to do what they tell you to do with it. 

Please cite for the "you have to do what they tell you" bit.

> If you want to take responsibility for trying to trace the owner
> yourself, then you can - you don't have to hand it over to the police.
> But you can't do both - you either give it to the police and let them
> do the work, or you hold on to it and do the work yourself.

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

Tony

On Sep 7, 11:50 pm, Mark Goodge 
wrote:
> On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 19:10:05 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
> >On Sep 6, 7:20 pm, "Mark BR"  wrote:
>
> >> It just gets so anoying when people feel the right to park on my land and
> >> there is in reality not much I can do and the same people then dump tyres -
> >> but it is impossible to prove - and I have to pay to remove them.
>
> >> With all the rain I'm just having a bad week end!
>
> >I'd stay away from the police when it comes to lost property. When I
> >contacted the police to tell them that I had come into possession of a
> >lost/stolen mobile phone, I was told that I must hand it in, at which
> >point they would try to trace the owner, or else hand it back to the
> >manufacturer.
>
> They're certainly right to say that you must hand it in.

Your comments regularly provide staple argument on these boards Mark.


> I'm not sure
> why they think that returning it to the manufacturer is a suitable
> alternative, unless that's specifically because it's a phone and the
> manufacturers have the ability to trace the owner via the IMEA code
> (which links it to a network and hence, hopefully, to a contract).

No. Ultimately, the police have made a policy decision not to hand
mobile phones back to people where the owner cannot be traced for
whatever reason.

The legality of this policy is questionable however, and no person
that I spoke to (whether they be belligerent or sympathetic to my
position) was able to refer correctly to any legislation. Indeed, I
was referred by one constable specifically to "the Police Property
Act", and "the Data Protection Act". Unfortunately for them, I already
knew the provisions of the Data Protection Act, and before attending
the station I had read up on the Police Property Act (both the 1897
and 1997 acts) - none of those acts contained anything which said lost
property must be submitted to police custody.


> >I did not agree that it should be returned to the manufacturer. I
> >insisted on holding on to it unless and until the owner was found
> >(perfectly legitimate),
>
> No; once you've reported it to the police it's no longer your
> responsibility and you have to do what they tell you to do with it.

Au contraire!
By the way, you don't happen to know a PC Hill working from Blackpool,
do you?


> If you want to take responsibility for trying to trace the owner
> yourself, then you can - you don't have to hand it over to the police.
> But you can't do both - you either give it to the police and let them
> do the work, or you hold on to it and do the work yourself.

Simply not true, Mark. I have notified the police, and given them all
the relevant details to allow them to trace the owner. At no point am
I forced to hand it over to anyone, except to the original owner.

In the event, the police have not traced the owner, so I use it in
Cyprus where it is not network-barred.

On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 11:40:10 +0100, Anthony R. Gold put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 21:50:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 19:10:05 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>>> I'd stay away from the police when it comes to lost property. When I
>>> contacted the police to tell them that I had come into possession of a
>>> lost/stolen mobile phone, I was told that I must hand it in, at which
>>> point they would try to trace the owner, or else hand it back to the
>>> manufacturer.
>>
>> They're certainly right to say that you must hand it in.
>
>Must suggests the failure to do so amounts to an offence.  Please explain.

I'm not sure if there's a simple offence which covers it - obstructing
the police in their duties, maybe. If the item doesn't find its way
back to the correct owner, then it's feasible that a charge of theft
could follow, if it appeared that you were deliberately trying to
reduce the possibility of that happening.

>> No; once you've reported it to the police it's no longer your
>> responsibility and you have to do what they tell you to do with it. 
>
>Please cite for the "you have to do what they tell you" bit.

Because that's the point of handing it to the police. You're giving
them the responsibility for the item. You can't do that if you then
want to retain responsibility for it yourself.

>> If you want to take responsibility for trying to trace the owner
>> yourself, then you can - you don't have to hand it over to the police.
>> But you can't do both - you either give it to the police and let them
>> do the work, or you hold on to it and do the work yourself.
>
>You appear to be contradicting yourself.

By saying that you have to choose between two mutually exclusive
courses of action? How?

Mark
-- 
My rather pointless blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
My less pointless stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
news:asvac45uh9vu3tranfa0bk6r1gqtt3cu6a@news.markshouse.net...
> On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 11:40:10 +0100, Anthony R. Gold put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 21:50:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 19:10:05 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>> I'd stay away from the police when it comes to lost property. When I
>>>> contacted the police to tell them that I had come into possession of a
>>>> lost/stolen mobile phone, I was told that I must hand it in, at which
>>>> point they would try to trace the owner, or else hand it back to the
>>>> manufacturer.
>>>
>>> They're certainly right to say that you must hand it in.
>>
>>Must suggests the failure to do so amounts to an offence.  Please explain.
>
> I'm not sure if there's a simple offence which covers it - obstructing
> the police in their duties, maybe. If the item doesn't find its way
> back to the correct owner, then it's feasible that a charge of theft
> could follow, if it appeared that you were deliberately trying to
> reduce the possibility of that happening.
>
So there is no law that requires anything to be handed in to the police.
If the OP hadn't called them they wouldn't have known.
As it seems that the police don't do anything to trace owners of lost phones 
there isn't much point in handing it in.

>>> No; once you've reported it to the police it's no longer your
>>> responsibility and you have to do what they tell you to do with it.
>>
>>Please cite for the "you have to do what they tell you" bit.
>
> Because that's the point of handing it to the police. You're giving
> them the responsibility for the item. You can't do that if you then
> want to retain responsibility for it yourself.
>
You don't have to give them the responsibility.  You can make efforts to 
trace the owner yourself.


>

On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 21:00:21 +0100, mert1639 put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>
>"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
>news:asvac45uh9vu3tranfa0bk6r1gqtt3cu6a@news.markshouse.net...
>>
>> Because that's the point of handing it to the police. You're giving
>> them the responsibility for the item. You can't do that if you then
>> want to retain responsibility for it yourself.
>>
>You don't have to give them the responsibility.  You can make efforts to 
>trace the owner yourself.

Er... that's my point. You either do it yourself, or you ask the
police to do it for you. But, if you ask the police to do it for you,
they are perfectly entitled to want to hang on to the item while doing
so. If you don't want them to do that, then don't ask them to try and
find the owner for you either.

Mark
-- 
My rather pointless blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
My less pointless stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Sep 8, 10:45 pm, Mark Goodge 
wrote:
> >> They're certainly right to say that you must hand it in.
>
> >Must suggests the failure to do so amounts to an offence.  Please explain.
>
> I'm not sure if there's a simple offence which covers it

I'm not sure that any offence covers it.


> - obstructing
> the police in their duties, maybe. If the item doesn't find its way
> back to the correct owner, then it's feasible that a charge of theft
> could follow, if it appeared that you were deliberately trying to
> reduce the possibility of that happening.

You're quite right regarding theft. The only sticking point, in
proving dishonest intentions, is that I contacted the police when I
need not have done, I gave them my full details, I gave them full
details of the mobile phone, and I explained how it came into my
possession. Then, when they did not get back to me after a few weeks,
I contacted them again to ask how things were proceeding (at which
point the arguments started)!

Even with this ostentatious display of good faith and public-
mindedness, the police still warned that there was a theft charge
lurking around the corner for me!

Furthermore, I did not refuse absolutely to hand in the mobile. I
simply explained that it was my understanding that I can retain the
property unless and until the owner is found. And I put it to them
that if they had the power to seize the property, then they should be
able to refer me to the appropriate legislation - as you know, they
could not.


> >> No; once you've reported it to the police it's no longer your
> >> responsibility and you have to do what they tell you to do with it.
>
> >Please cite for the "you have to do what they tell you" bit.
>
> Because that's the point of handing it to the police. You're giving
> them the responsibility for the item. You can't do that if you then
> want to retain responsibility for it yourself.

Their only responsibilty is to check the records, and if possible find
the owner. They do not need physical possession of the mobile to do
this.


> >> If you want to take responsibility for trying to trace the owner
> >> yourself, then you can - you don't have to hand it over to the police.
> >> But you can't do both - you either give it to the police and let them
> >> do the work, or you hold on to it and do the work yourself.
>
> >You appear to be contradicting yourself.
>
> By saying that you have to choose between two mutually exclusive
> courses of action? How?

Well, because there is a third course of action. Give the police all
necessary details to allow them to trace any owner, but still retain
physical possession of the mobile.

On Sep 9, 12:15 am, Mark Goodge 
wrote:
>
> Er... that's my point. You either do it yourself, or you ask the
> police to do it for you. But, if you ask the police to do it for you,
> they are perfectly entitled to want to hang on to the item while doing
> so. If you don't want them to do that, then don't ask them to try and
> find the owner for you either.

Unfortunately, in order to retain the property lawfully, I must make
"reasonable efforts" to trace the owner. As far as I'm concerned,
notifying the police and giving all details necessary for them to
trace the owner meets the test of "reasonable effort".

It's not so much that I like having dealings with the police. In fact
I've developed quite a distaste for them over the years. It is that,
one, dealing with them invariably proves good-faith intentions, and
two, if there were an owner to be traced, the police are likely to be
the only one's able to do so and inform the owner that their mobile
has been found.

On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 20:45:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

> On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 11:40:10 +0100, Anthony R. Gold put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 21:50:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 19:10:05 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>> I'd stay away from the police when it comes to lost property. When I
>>>> contacted the police to tell them that I had come into possession of a
>>>> lost/stolen mobile phone, I was told that I must hand it in, at which
>>>> point they would try to trace the owner, or else hand it back to the
>>>> manufacturer.
>>>
>>> They're certainly right to say that you must hand it in.
>>
>> Must suggests the failure to do so amounts to an offence.  Please explain.
>
> I'm not sure if there's a simple offence which covers it - obstructing
> the police in their duties, maybe. If the item doesn't find its way
> back to the correct owner, then it's feasible that a charge of theft
> could follow, if it appeared that you were deliberately trying to
> reduce the possibility of that happening.
>
>>> No; once you've reported it to the police it's no longer your
>>> responsibility and you have to do what they tell you to do with it. 
>>
>> Please cite for the "you have to do what they tell you" bit.
>
> Because that's the point of handing it to the police. You're giving
> them the responsibility for the item. You can't do that if you then
> want to retain responsibility for it yourself.

If it was ever an objective of the finder to end their duty to keep the
item safe then clearly they would hand it over out of self interest and not
under this alleged duty "to do what they tell you to do with it."

>>> If you want to take responsibility for trying to trace the owner
>>> yourself, then you can - you don't have to hand it over to the police.
>>> But you can't do both - you either give it to the police and let them
>>> do the work, or you hold on to it and do the work yourself.
>>
>> You appear to be contradicting yourself.
>
> By saying that you have to choose between two mutually exclusive
> courses of action? How?

By first saying that a finder must give a found item to the police, a claim
that I dispute, and then describing this alternative course of action that
you say is also open to the finder.

Tony

On Tue,  9 Sep 2008 00:10:05 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>>>> If you want to take responsibility for trying to trace the owner
>>>> yourself, then you can - you don't have to hand it over to the police.
>>>> But you can't do both - you either give it to the police and let them
>>>> do the work, or you hold on to it and do the work yourself.

>>> You appear to be contradicting yourself.

>> By saying that you have to choose between two mutually exclusive
>> courses of action? How?

>By first saying that a finder must give a found item to the police, a claim
>that I dispute, and then describing this alternative course of action that
>you say is also open to the finder.

In the case of a mobile phone, it is usually trivially easy to trace
the owner.  Simply call people in the address book of the lost mobile
and ask them if they know the person who has the number of the lost
mobile.  After getting an alternative number to contact the alleged
owner, you can call them and ask a few questions to ensure it is
indeed their phone.  There are fairly easy techniques to extract the
address book from most phones that are password protected, and to get
the mobile's number.  If the lost mobile is unprotected and charged,
use it to call people in its address book shortly after finding it.

I have found 2 mobile phones in the past few years - one an expensive
"Blackberry device".  In the first case my son found the phone in the
seat of a fairground ride, and calling a contact on its "recent calls"
list got through to someone who was with the owner and still in the
fairground, and in the second case I was able to contact the owner the
same day.

-- 
Cynic

In message , at 15:05:05 on 
Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Cynic  remarked:
>In the case of a mobile phone, it is usually trivially easy to trace
>the owner.  Simply call people in the address book of the lost mobile
>and ask them if they know the person who has the number of the lost
>mobile.

I wonder if the police are allowed to do that - it's interfering in the 
owner's property and privacy, without a crime being investigated.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sep 9, 6:05 pm, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message , at 15:05:05 on
> Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Cynic  remarked:
>
> >In the case of a mobile phone, it is usually trivially easy to trace
> >the owner.  Simply call people in the address book of the lost mobile
> >and ask them if they know the person who has the number of the lost
> >mobile.
>
> I wonder if the police are allowed to do that - it's interfering in the
> owner's property and privacy, without a crime being investigated.
> --
> Roland Perry

But, one imagines, a reasonable course of action in all the
circumstances.