Filling gas bottles

[Paul C]

The fact that it was hired to you isn't material. You were hired agas bottle for specific purposes, and you are now going beyond those purposes. You are treating the gas bottle as if you own it, because you have overridden the rights of the owner.

 

Appropriates isn't remotely arguable.

 

The only thing that is arguable is the intent to permanently deprive

The fact that it was hired, is absolutely critical. Put simply, if you hire something, the owner can't claim its stolen simply because they don't like the way you're using it.

[Jerra]

The fact that it was hired, is absolutely critical. Put simply, if you hire something, the owner can't claim its stolen simply because they don't like the way you're using it.

But surely they can when you have stopped refilling it (the purpose for which it was hired out) and are filling it against the agreement. You are showing no signs of returning their property and you have stopped using it for the purpose for which it was hired.

 

I suspect if you hired a car and decided to use it in an illegal way (contrary to both law and the hire contract) you would be deemed to have stolen it.

[Paul C]

But surely they can when you have stopped refilling it (the purpose for which it was hired out) and are filling it against the agreement. You are showing no signs of returning their property and you have stopped using it for the purpose for which it was hired.

 

I suspect if you hired a car and decided to use it in an illegal way (contrary to both law and the hire contract) you would be deemed to have stolen it.

 

 

It would be a civil matter, not criminal.

 

[nicknorman]

I suspect if you hired a car and decided to use it in an illegal way (contrary to both law and the hire contract) you would be deemed to have stolen it.

You suspect wrong. The hire contract disallows you smoking in the car, the law requires you to obey the speed limits. If you were found speeding and smoking in the car, you would not be prosecuted for theft.

 

 

Next silly example ....

[Jerra]

You suspect wrong. The hire contract disallows you smoking in the car, the law requires you to obey the speed limits. If you were found speeding and smoking in the car, you would not be prosecuted for theft.

 

 

Next silly example ....

No not silly you are looking at the nitpicking side of it. Say using it as a get away car or banger racing. Do you think it would still be a civil matter and not counted as theft.

[WotEver]

No not silly you are looking at the nitpicking side of it. Say using it as a get away car or banger racing. Do you think it would still be a civil matter and not counted as theft.

It certainly wouldn't be theft in either case. In the case of a getaway car you'd simply return it with some hard miles under the belt. In the case of banger racing you'd return it probably somewhat bent.

 

If the police caught you whilst in a getaway you'd be prosecuted for theft of whatever was stolen, but not theft of the car. In the case of banger racing the police would probably have a good laugh if they heard about it.

[Jerra]

It certainly wouldn't be theft in either case. In the case of a getaway car you'd simply return it with some hard miles under the belt. In the case of banger racing you'd return it probably somewhat bent.

 

If the police caught you whilst in a getaway you'd be prosecuted for theft of whatever was stolen, but not theft of the car. In the case of banger racing the police would probably have a good laugh if they heard about it.

So neither (particularly when the get away car is torched to destroy evidence) are permanently depriving the owner of their property.

 

Sorry one of us is from a different planet.

[WotEver]

Lol!!! Now you're just adding stuff to support your silly argument. Of course if you torch the car (where was that little nugget in your original post?) you've permanently deprived the owner of his goods. I suspect the charge would be arson as opposed to theft though. You could still give back the burned out shell.

 

Here you go... if I steal something then I can be prosecuted for theft. Something we can agree on?

 

You've taken this so far from filling a Calor bottle that it's ludicrous.

 

If I destroy a Calor bottle that could be classed as theft. If I fill it with someone else's gas I haven't 'torched it', crushed it or in fact damaged it in any way, I've simply filled it with someone else's gas.

 

Tony

Edited August 14, 2016 by WotEver

[furnessvale]

Lol!!! Now you're just adding stuff to support your silly argument. Of course if you torch the car (where was that little nugget in your original post?) you've permanently deprived the owner of his goods. I suspect the charge would be arson as opposed to theft though. You could still give back the burned out shell.

 

Here you go... if I steal something then I can be prosecuted for theft. Something we can agree on?

 

You've taken this so far from filling a Calor bottle that it's ludicrous.

 

 

Tony

In using that calor bottle as described you have fulfilled every aspect of theft as defined in the theft act 1968 except one. That one aspect is "intent to permanently deprive".

 

In order to commit any offence you must fulfill every aspect of the definition of that offence, it is not a pick and mix situation.

 

To prove "intent to permanently deprive" is the sticking point and speaking from practical experience, something more than simply using it as described would be required. Perhaps repainting the bottle would do, or refusing to hand it over to a calor agent when found misusing it.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[WotEver]

^^^^This

[Jerra]

Lol!!! Now you're just adding stuff to support your silly argument. Of course if you torch the car (where was that little nugget in your original post?) you've permanently deprived the owner of his goods. I suspect the charge would be arson as opposed to theft though. You could still give back the burned out shell.

 

Here you go... if I steal something then I can be prosecuted for theft. Something we can agree on?

 

You've taken this so far from filling a Calor bottle that it's ludicrous.

 

If I destroy a Calor bottle that could be classed as theft. If I fill it with someone else's gas I haven't 'torched it', crushed it or in fact damaged it in any way, I've simply filled it with someone else's gas.

 

Tony

With regard to the torching I assumed that most (all?) readers would be able to extrapolate to understand that the illegal act needed to be more than smoking in a car or speeding to be permanent. It seems I was far from the mark.

 

Personally I call that silly. No point trying to discuss explain things further. Bye!

That one aspect is "intent to permanently deprive".

 

Doers anyone who has started to fill their "bottles" other than by the correct method have any intention of stopping and returning the bottle? I can't see somebody getting a set up and a fter a year or two thinking oh I had better give this back to Calor and find another somewhere else. No they keep the original and keep using it with no intention of ever returning it.

 

Surely intent to permanently deprive.

[Guest]

Don't say you weren't warned

[Paul C]

 

Doers anyone who has started to fill their "bottles" other than by the correct method have any intention of stopping and returning the bottle? I can't see somebody getting a set up and a fter a year or two thinking oh I had better give this back to Calor and find another somewhere else. No they keep the original and keep using it with no intention of ever returning it.

 

Surely intent to permanently deprive.

 

The truth is, we don't know their future intentions and to assume that they'll permanently do it is just an assumption - which doesn't reach the threshold in criminal law of proving it. For example, one might have the adapter to fill the bottle and do it every now and again when its convenient, for example when the gas runs out at their home mooring and they can put the empty bottle in the car, drive to the garage selling LPG and fill it. When they're out and about cruising, the car is inaccessible and if they ran out of gas, may quite legitimately decide to buy a refill (and swap bottles) at a marina, despite the higher cost, rather than run down the 2nd bottle and risk completely running out if on a big trip (especially as they are probably a high-usage consumer of gas).

 

Or, someone might do dodgy refills most times, but recognise that the bottles are inspected when Calor refill them, so as time goes by and the bottle gets a bit shabby, decide to do a legit swap/refill every few years or so.

 

I see the argument that by investing in the refilling stuff, the "hire" has somewhat turned into "keeps", but its certainly not a given; and also the fact that its an open-ended hire (with a hefty deposit and a rubbish return £ amount) means that hire period overall is undefined; therefore the time holding each individual bottle cannot be defined either, unless someone assumes something about gas usage rate.

 

Too many assumptions for me to conclude a "theft" has been committed.

[Guest]

It's frankly almost unbelievable that this thread is still actually running and people are still actually having to be shown why filling a gas bottle that belongs to somebody else is not stealing it from them.

 

Even more unbelievable is people actually adding in the 'torching of hire cars' to justify their argument, what on earth that has to do with any of this is anybodies guess, just how desperate do you have to get to build an argument that it is 'stealing'?

 

Edited August 14, 2016 by MJG

[ditchcrawler]

Would you please all make sure that when your over filled cylinder explodes in the summer heat you are not moored near me.

[Paul C]

Would you please all make sure that when your over filled cylinder explodes in the summer heat you are not moored near me.

 

Which posters are supporting filling with the device in the OP (which doesn't have auto overfill prevention mechanism)? I can't remember if anyone is arguing for it; just a confusion on the exact legal situation which regulates against it from a legislative point of view.

[furnessvale]

Doers anyone who has started to fill their "bottles" other than by the correct method have any intention of stopping and returning the bottle? I can't see somebody getting a set up and a fter a year or two thinking oh I had better give this back to Calor and find another somewhere else. No they keep the original and keep using it with no intention of ever returning it.

 

Surely intent to permanently deprive.

Personally.I couldn't agree more. Sadly it is not me that needs convincing but a court of law.

 

The rot set in many years ago when some soft headed judge decided that car thieves who stole motor cars and dumped them hundreds of miles away did not "intend to permanently deprive" simply, because of the good offices of the police, owner and car were reunited.

 

Nothing the thieves did assisted this process, and without the police the owner would never see his car again.

 

I personally would not accept TWOC unless the thieves returned the car to exactly where they had taken it from and undamaged. Even then, they have most certainly stolen some of the petrol that was in the tank (putting some of their own petrol in to replace it does not count).

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[saltysplash]

So, you are saying ALL the elements are missing?

 

Do you claim that a cas bottle is NOT property then?

 

Or do you claim that it doesn't belong to Calor?

 

Perhaps you claim that it hasn't been appropriated.

Is the appropriation Dishonest?

Is there an intention to permanently deprive?

 

It doesnt matter how you try and spin it Dave, Its not theft unless the perp is going to 'sing like a birdy' in interview and cop a plea.

 

As george says above, Take and drive away had to be introduced because joy riders apparently didnt intend to permanently deprive.

[jonathanA]

Would you please all make sure that when your over filled cylinder explodes in the summer heat you are not moored near me.

You clearly don't understand the laws of physics ( although on the basis of this thread we could decide to amend the laws of physics to suit our own peculiar viewpoints)

 

There is no risk whatsoever of an overfilled bottle exploding anymore than an normally filled one. What there is is a risk of release of gas if the over pressure thing goes, although the greater issue is liquid gas getting into the regulator and or pipe work, think that was mentioned at the start of this thread but I lost the will to live and cba going to look.....

[Phil Ambrose]

Just a warning to self fillers, does anybody recall an episode of London"s Burning where there was a series of explosions and a fire ay a bottle gas depot.

Now here's the thing, it was based on true life events, I know because it was a Elf Flexigas depot at Scrubbs Lane (near the prison) and there were cylinders taking of like aerial torpedos, passing straight through houses, roaring down streets. Only God knows how nobody was killed that night. The cause of this incident was never really understood bit was thought to be due to a dropped bottle, possibly damaging the valve, the escaping gas was ignited by some means and all hell broke loose. I was working at the Boston depot at the time and we had to work flat out to truck gas down to replace what had been lost.

This depot was simply that and not a filling plant, so if you are dead set on saving a bob or two make sure you don't end up dead.

Phil

Edited August 14, 2016 by Phil Ambrose

[RLWP]

make sure you don't end up dead.

Phil

 

I've no problem with the filler ending up dead. It's the other poor sods in range that concern me

 

Richard

[Ray T]

Just a warning to self fillers, does anybody recall an episode of London"s Burning where there was a series of explosions and a fire ay a bottle gas depot.

Now here's the thing, it was based on true life events, I know because it was a Elf Flexigas depot at Scrubbs Lane (near the prison) and there were cylinders taking of like aerial torpedos, passing straight through houses, roaring down streets. Only God knows how nobody was killed that night. The cause of this incident was never really understood bit was thought to be due to a dropped bottle, possibly damaging the valve, the escaping gas was ignited by some means and all hell broke loose. I was working at the Boston depot at the time and we had to work flat out to truck gas down to replace what had been lost.

This depot was simply that and not a filling plant, so if you are dead set on saving a bob or two make sure you don't end up dead.

Phil

 

[peterboat]

Autogas filling stations disallow filling of gas bottles (or anything else) unless there is an automatic device to cut off filling at 80%. This adapter seems to rely on a calculation then watching the LPG pump and manually doing it. I doubt you'll find a petrol station in your local area willing to overlook this. Also its illegal in the context of, its not your bottle and the "bottle rental" contract disallows refilling.

 

http://www.safefill.co.uk/is an alternative that has the automatic overfill protection device and is designed to be user-refilled. However they say they also have many issues with being allowed to fill at a petrol station, I guess you would have more luck but still might need to travel a fair distance to find one in your local area to fill it.

PS the gas is the same, its a non-issue.

 

 

Refilling will be a problem.

 

Refilling opportunities are getting less and many garages are not stocking as there is a reduced demand, less vehicles running on gas.

 

Many Motor-homes have a purposely designed systems using bottles and some/most garages and supermarkets will not let them refill.

 

Those with purpose built under-hung tanks are usually OK but even them some stations are 'awkward'

 

 

You could face criminal or civil action. As I say it is possible to be charged with theft which is a criminal offence. just because there is not a specific law doesn't mean it isn't illegal. for example there is no specific law that says you should not steal Pens but you could still be prosecuted if you did.

 

There are also issues of HSE about refilling the Calor type bottles on forecourts etc.

 

This website is worth a look at.

 

http://www.gasit.co.uk/leisure-gas-refillable-products/7-gas-pipes-pigtails-and-vapour-tank-accessories/on-bottle-bayonet-fillpoint-p446.html

 

They of course sell refillable bottles so aren't neutral in the matter you may say but it does lay out the issue.

 

Calor themselves have this to say.

 

https://www.calor.co.uk/news/calor-warns-about-unlawful-filling-of-lpg-cylinders-at-autogas-refuelling-sites/

 

 

 

Definitely - and by stark contrast where I live we have a plethora of Calor retailers. (though of course I recognise this might not be the same everywhere) I cant think of one local forecourt that sells LPG.

 

LPG as a fuel for vehicles has definitely not taken off as some expected it to, however who knows what will happen as diesel use becomes increasingly 'demonised' and people still need powerful torquey engines, we might yet see a resurgence.

 

 

 

We might indeed. Especially as addng LPG to the air intake of diesel engines can provide a valuable power boost, and not only reduce fuel consumption and cost, but cut emissions, especially particulates.

 

http://www.mercuryfuelsystems.com/

As I have said on here before I had a garage until last year we did gas conversions maybe over a thousand of them. When I left, the garage stopped doing them because he did not really understand the complexities of the latest conversions, [they are very clever and reliable]. I have not noticed any drop off in filling stations and I have 2 vehicles converted with one more to go. I made a bottle filler years ago and used it safely over those years [2 litres of lpg weighs a kilo] I have no gas on my boat so I dont fill bottles anymore. A modern petrol car on LPG is cheaper to run than a diesel equivalent and it is much much cleaner [probably the cleanest practical way of fueling a vehicle] I have seen lpg added to diesels and tried a kit myself, on the emissions it was good, not sure about the engine life though? I know that autogas is supposed to be propane but I am fairly sure at time butane is mixed in as I have had experience of strange running from some LPG sources. On the continent they run up to 25% butane in the mix [OMVL worlds biggest LPG equipment suppliers figures] but we are assured by UK trade body for LPG conversions that the UK doesnt do this ha ha. Over the years I have fitted tanks to caravans and motorhomes so that they can buy cheap gas and never heard of any problems with them filling them equally I have had the overfill device fail on tanks I have fitted to cars and again have not known of any problems or explosions linked to this. I have however seen in Manchester a car drive off with the connector still connected and the off button clearly over ridden by the big white clouds over the LPG station!! Accidents do happen just dont be one of them

[Guest]

As I have said on here before I had a garage until last year we did gas conversions maybe over a thousand of them. When I left, the garage stopped doing them because he did not really understand the complexities of the latest conversions, [they are very clever and reliable]. I have not noticed any drop off in filling stations and I have 2 vehicles converted with one more to go. I made a bottle filler years ago and used it safely over those years [2 litres of lpg weighs a kilo] I have no gas on my boat so I dont fill bottles anymore. A modern petrol car on LPG is cheaper to run than a diesel equivalent and it is much much cleaner [probably the cleanest practical way of fueling a vehicle] I have seen lpg added to diesels and tried a kit myself, on the emissions it was good, not sure about the engine life though? I know that autogas is supposed to be propane but I am fairly sure at time butane is mixed in as I have had experience of strange running from some LPG sources. On the continent they run up to 25% butane in the mix [OMVL worlds biggest LPG equipment suppliers figures] but we are assured by UK trade body for LPG conversions that the UK doesnt do this ha ha. Over the years I have fitted tanks to caravans and motorhomes so that they can buy cheap gas and never heard of any problems with them filling them equally I have had the overfill device fail on tanks I have fitted to cars and again have not known of any problems or explosions linked to this. I have however seen in Manchester a car drive off with the connector still connected and the off button clearly over ridden by the big white clouds over the LPG station!! Accidents do happen just dont be one of them

 

All of that doesn't appear to change what was said about it not taking off as a fuel for vehicles though. (The post of mine which you included in the ones you posted)

 

It had the potential to but just doesn't seem to have done. And there are definitely fewer outlets near to where I live, there were never a huge number but I can think of at least two forecourts a few years ago that sold LPG local to me (say within 10 miles) neither of which sell it today. A quick check of the map link posted earlier shows they haven't been replaced, but we have lost a few forecourts over recent years anyway.

 

I suspect the retailers just don't think they are worth the additional hassle, especially if they think they are going to have the extra hassle of dealing with people wanting to fill their gas bottles using systems of debatable safety standards like refill systems with no over fill protection. (Like the one featured in the original post)

 

It is also worth a mention that if like us you are a regular traveller on Euro tunnel you are not allowed to travel if your vehicle is powered by LPG (Even though you can travel if you have LPG properly stowed in cylinders in your caravan or motor home).

Edited August 15, 2016 by MJG

[mayalld]

Is the appropriation Dishonest?

Is there an intention to permanently deprive?

 

It doesnt matter how you try and spin it Dave, Its not theft unless the perp is going to 'sing like a birdy' in interview and cop a plea.

 

As george says above, Take and drive away had to be introduced because joy riders apparently didnt intend to permanently deprive.

 

Yes, the appropriation is dishonest.

 

That isn't really arguable. You have taken to yourself the rights of the owner, without any belief that the owner approves of you doing so. That is pretty much textbook dishonesty in Theft Act terms.

 

The ONLY part of proving theft that is actually arguable here is the intent to permanently deprive, and I FULLY accept that this is a factor that makes it vanishingly unlikely that a prosecution for theft would occur.

 

However, for the sake of arguing the point, let us consider what needs to be proved, and what might be factored in.

 

If you have bought a device to enable you to refill bottles (rather than borrowed it from a friend), that shows an intent to do this repeatedly. You could say that it was always your intention to return the bottle eventually, but it looks a weak claim. One could suggest that whilst the bottle is still in your possession, there remains a chance that you will see the error of your ways, and return the bottle, but that isn't material. Intent is what matters, and even if you later decide to become honest, the intent was there at the beginning.

 

It has also been suggested that once the bottle becomes a bit ropey, some might pay for an exchange to get another (tested) bottle, and Calor can have their old bottle back for testing. This has been advanced as an argument that there is no intention to permanently deprive. Quite the contrary. It shows an intention to permanently deprive Calor of a functional gas cylinder, and to return it only when it is no longer usable.

 

If I nick your car, and then 15 years later park it up on your drive, am I a thief? Have I permanently deprived you of your property? To take a more short term example, let us assume that you have tickets (for the cinema, a concert, a football match or whatever). I take those tickets, and attend the event. I then place the tickets in an envelope, and return them to you. We will assume that this is barcoded entry, and that the tickets are undamaged. Have I permanently deprived you of the tickets that you have in your hand?