Jeweller fails to repair engagement ring and will not return ring

[stu007]

Ok I can't agree with the company mentioned in post#15 (yes I came across the same company) but do a google search on studio 55 mentioned and have a very close look at the shop frontage for studio 55 and what it says. (note it states 'Studio 55' and also under Instant Cash very bottom 'Biggleswade Gold Exchange')

 

The Company I get is:

 

Biggleswade Gold Exchange & Studio 55
55 High Street

Biggleswade
Bedfordshire
SG18 0JH

 

Company Number: 4265327

 

Company Type: Non-Limited Business

 

Companycheck link: https://companycheck.co.uk/nonLimitedCompany/4265327/BIGGLESWADE-GOLD-EXCHANGE--STUDIO-55/summary

 

 

 

[Peterbard]

On 02/08/2019 at 15:08, king12345 said:

It is fraud or theft, read the acts and fit the bill as police should do instead of claiming "civil matter".

By your interpretation I can open a jewellery repair shop on a ltd company,  take as many jewels as possible and than close down and it would be perfectly legal.

No my dear, it's not. 

The ring belongs to the op and must be returned. 

From the theft act: 

Basic definition of theft.

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

 

From the fraud act:

Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

 

You would have to prove intent under both the causes of action.

 

Your description of a fraudulent act is fanciful nonesense.

 

He is a jeweller, you would expect him to carry out repairs .  This claim would not be fraudulent.

 

He did not "dishonestly appropriate" you gave him your property.

 

I have read these sections, and many others, many times. Thanks very much.

 

[Peterbard]

2 Abolition of detinue.

(1)Detinue is abolished.

(2)An action lies in conversion for loss or destruction of goods which a bailee has allowed to happen in breach of his duty to his bailor (that is to say it lies in a case which is not otherwise conversion, but would have been detinue before detinue was abolished).

3 Form of judgment where goods are detained.

(1)In proceedings for wrongful interference against a person who is in possession or in control of the goods relief may be given in accordance with this section, so far as appropriate.

(2)The relief is—

(a)an order for delivery of the goods, and for payment of any consequential damages, or

(b)an order for delivery of the goods, but giving the defendant the alternative of paying damages by reference to the value of the goods, together in either alternative with payment of any consequential damages, or

(c)damages.

(3)Subject to rules of court—

(a)relief shall be given under only one of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2),

(b)relief under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) is at the discretion of the court, and the claimant may choose between the others.

(4)If it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that an order under subsection (2)(a) has not been complied with, the court may—

(a)revoke the order, or the relevant part of it, and

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/32

 

It should be noted that this CIVIL action does not depend on transfer, legally or otherwise. Title to goods remains with the Bailor, the shop only acquires goods in posession.

 

[king12345]

You're complicating things in true solicitor's style.

 

The matter is very simple:

 

Jeweller made a false representation: I can fix your ring, give it to me. 

He couldn't fix it but he knew they were closing down and he was gonna keep everything in stock at that point, so he refused to hand the ring over with many excuses.

That's fraud.

 

Or:

 

The jeweller is in possession of my property,  no matter how he got hold of it, it's still my property and I want it back.

The jeweller knows that they're closing down and refuses to hand the ring over with intention to permanently deprive me of it.

That's theft.

 

But of course for police and solicitors used to protect criminals it's a civil matter that needs to be dealt via the proper court channels, blah blah blah, 6 months later you get a ccj against a defunct company.

Result: not only you lost the ring but you also lost money and time with the useless court proceedings. 

 

I would prefer to try my way first and if that doesn't work, think about waste money on a pointless civil claim which is always an open option.