GREGSTERWIZ

Do you actually know what theft is ? Dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive.

Look at the words and then go away and try to work out what each of them actually means. It is very basic law.

For the offence to be complete each aspect must be fulfilled

Hence, in this case is not theft.

UTMV or TWOC is not theft because there is no intent to permanently deprive. It is a seperate offence to theft altogether designed to combat joyriding, etc. It does not apply in this scenario either.

Try not to punch above your weight.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

As for neglect of duty, try not to bother yourself with complexities of Police Discipline Regulations

You would only confuse yourself even more

The internet is definately the best place for you to spout your flawed (lack of) knowledge of law

You may get someone into trouble in the real world if someone actually listened to your advice

Stick to sailing mate, you'll have a captive audience at sea. Just hope they forget everything you've told them when they get back to shore

PS. As for shoving my head up my backside and some kind of badly written reference to my IQ. I come across people like you every day who think they know it all. They rarely know much if anything at all and base their opinions on TV police dramas or the imaginings of something they thought they heard in the pub. The worst ones are people with limited knowledge. Like you.



Night night.

smnasn

Probably right but they may have a lien over the car until the bill is paid.
[/quote]

Just to be clear, the part I objected to was the statement "they are lawful owners of the vehicle" which implies they have title to it. As Welshman says, what they have is a lien i.e. effectively being able to hold the car as security - they never own the vehicle. There was a case in the 70s used as a test case which did indeed result in a prosecution under the 1968 TA. In that case though, the defendant was attempting not to pay any of the monies due IIRC.

I think to be fair to loftust, this is probably what he meant in his original statement even if it perhaps it was not phrased 100% correctly.

loftust

By taking the vehicle (even if it is his) displays intent to permanently deprive. I like the way you have got the verbatim wording though...probably from using Wiki, or another ret@rd supporting website.

TWOC was never mentioned!

As smnasn has eluded to, the test case proves that it would be theft, as does the black and white wording of the TA...and said person I mentioned earlier in the thread.

If you're more than 13st 4lbs, then I would be. On a mental level, I sincerely doubt it.

As for the rest of what you wrote...have a word with yourself. Just because you don't agree with something, it doesn't mean that you should try and prove it to be wrong...that's dangerous.

I'd definitely agree to this, the words I chose were incorrect. Removing the lien through the taking of the vehicle demonstrates intent to deprive the garage of the money they require prior to releasing the vehicle...this is theft.

AquilaEagle

Leave the bickering at the playground gates please, boys.

san2000

Update:

So I called Mazda UK Cust Serv back (they had left a message on my phone whilst I was out of the country). They confirmed that they had arranged with B to discount the money off my next service.
I told her that I would be living quite some distance from B when it came to the next service and I would be paying in fuel and time to bring the car back to B. So could I simply get a refund of the money?
She called B and asked them. B called me back and bluntly said 'No'.

She then spoke with the dealer principal who bluntly said 'No'. Not only that, but the she tells me that the dealer principal told her that I was told the cost in advance which is the most complete utter nonsense I have heard.

The ONLY reason I took it to B is because they said that if it didn't turn out to be a Mazda warranty issue, then A would cover it. I simply wouldn't have bothered otherwise.

So, what's left to do?


Oh, and A = Hendy Mazda in Eastleigh, and B = Wolverhampton Mazda.

loftust

Demand satisfaction. I would want to speak to each person myself, and not let a 2-bit secretary do it for you. All the time that the principal is speaking to her, you are just another customer. You need to argue your case for yourself, and if this fails, go higher...they will always have a manager above them.

I know time is getting on, but a strongly worded letter of intent usually works (perhaps with a view to going to the media and/or trading standards).

You could always try standing outside either dealership on a Saturday morning for an hour and telling people of your experience with Mazda...this ought to raise a few eyebrows.

GREGSTERWIZ

Strangely, I agree with the Admiral

Face to face is always better. And time is money. The DP won't want to stand there arguing, he should have better things to do.

san2000

I've spoken directly to the DP.

I have also submitted a report to Watchdog.

Nottm_S2

I'd not waste any more time
Replace the car at some point, not with a mazda. And learn dealers are c0cks.

Be sure to let mazda know your rationale

san2000

Oh, it's the last time I'll be buying a Mazda. You can be sure of that.

I know the 'principle' thing is so cliché, but.....well, it bugs me that these people can get away with cheating.