Filling gas bottles

[MtB]

Well Mike, you showed great promise earlier in this thread but now sadly you have let yourself down.

Fact, unlike others I have never claimed that my opinion is correct, suggest you have another read of the thread to find where I have made such s claim and perhaps point it out to me.

Phil

I shall pop back later.

 

 

Patronising twaddle.

 

You normal response to being called out.

[Phil Ambrose]

 

 

Patronising twaddle.

 

You normal response to being called out.

So no response then big boy.

Phil

[MtB]

So no response then big boy.

Phil

 

 

What other response might you have been expecting?

 

(The answer your question is "Post 247".)

[Phil Ambrose]

 

 

What other response might you have been expecting?

 

(The answer your question is "Post 247".)

Try harder Mike, oh and as you mentioned patronizing, that is something you have raised to the level of an art form.

Phil

[MtB]

I should never have taken you off 'ignore'. Back you go.

 

Ah, that's better!

[Phil Ambrose]

I should never have taken you off 'ignore'. Back you go.

 

Ah, that's better!

Ditto, peace and quiet once again.

Phil

[mayalld]

 

Yes, because Tesco never gave you permission to remove their trolley from their premises.

I I go into a Tesco car park and unload my car (which is full of Asda shopping) into one of their trolleys, trundle the trolley to the other side of the car park and unload it into a friend's car, is that theft? By your definition it is.

 

Nope, because in that case, the intent to permanently deprive is clearly absent.

 

But to concentrate on your initial sentence;

 

You accept that Tesco having loaned me a trolley (for a consideration of one pound, incidentally), and that permission being proscribed by what Tesco give me permission to do with that trolley (whether explicit or implied, because at my local Tesco, there are no signs prohibiting me from taking away a trolley), if I take that trolley away, and use it for my own purposes, I have appropriated that trolley.

 

It is no different from appropriating a gas bottle.

[saltysplash]

I have appropriated that trolley.

 

It is no different from appropriating a gas bottle.

But not dishonestly........which is what you keep ignoring...the dishonest appropriation of property

[Tacet]

 

You accept that Tesco having loaned me a trolley (for a consideration of one pound, incidentally), and that permission being proscribed by what Tesco give me permission to do with that trolley (whether explicit or implied, because at my local Tesco, there are no signs prohibiting me from taking away a trolley), if I take that trolley away, and use it for my own purposes, I have appropriated that trolley.

 

It is no different from appropriating a gas bottle.

 

No one is claiming that a gas bottle can't be stolen, the question is whether refilling (alone) is theft.

 

If a hired (empty) gas bottle is used to, say, prop open a gate whilst the paint dried, would that be theft? It has been used it for own purposes in contravention of the hire agreement; has it been appropriated?

 

I think not; there is no intention to deprive Calor of its property or assume its title. Now if the gas bottle was cut-up or somehow more-permanently converted to a gate prop, that might well be a different matter. In the same manner, borrowing the kit and refilling a single bottle on a single occasion possibly in exceptional circumstances is unlikely to amount to appropriation. Make a habit of it, repaint the cylinder with roses and castles, cut off that annoying top bit that prevents the gas locker lid from closing or establish a business refilling cylinders might well be indicators of appropriation. But does refilling = theft?

[mayalld]

But not dishonestly........which is what you keep ignoring...the dishonest appropriation of property

 

Yes, there is dishonesty.

 

The Theft Act defines Dishonesty, or to be more precise it defines what is NOT dishonest in relation to appropriating property.

 

It says;

 

(1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—

(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

 

(if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

 

© (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

 

(2) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.

 

So, this is a negative definition. Any appropriation that fails to meet the standards for honesty is dishonest.

 

In relation to the gas bottle;

 

(a) Is there a belief that there is a right in law to appropriate the gas bottle?

( Is there a belief that Calor would approve of it?

© Is it impossible to discover who owns the gas bottle?

 

As the answer to all three is "no", the appropriation is dishonest.

[saltysplash]

 

In relation to the gas bottle;

 

(a) Is there a belief that there is a right in law to appropriate the gas bottle?

( Is there a belief that Calor would approve of it?

© Is it impossible to discover who owns the gas bottle?

 

As the answer to all three is "no", the appropriation is dishonest.

You are assuming the answer to a is No.

 

Any person having hired their gas bottle or inherited one with a boat may well have a reasonable belief that they can refill the bottle. Their appropriation is not dishonest. It may breach the Hire agreement and invoke civil law but its not criminal and not dishonest. Nor is their intention to permanently deprive.

 

Same for your shopping trolly. Youve paid your pound, and unless there are signs or a physical barrier preventing you from removing it then a person may well have a genuine belief that they can use it around the town for the rest of their shopping.

Not dishonest

[mayalld]

 

No one is claiming that a gas bottle can't be stolen, the question is whether refilling (alone) is theft.

 

If a hired (empty) gas bottle is used to, say, prop open a gate whilst the paint dried, would that be theft? It has been used it for own purposes in contravention of the hire agreement; has it been appropriated?

 

I think not; there is no intention to deprive Calor of its property or assume its title. Now if the gas bottle was cut-up or somehow more-permanently converted to a gate prop, that might well be a different matter. In the same manner, borrowing the kit and refilling a single bottle on a single occasion possibly in exceptional circumstances is unlikely to amount to appropriation. Make a habit of it, repaint the cylinder with roses and castles, cut off that annoying top bit that prevents the gas locker lid from closing or establish a business refilling cylinders might well be indicators of appropriation. But does refilling = theft?

 

I actually addressed this exact issue in earlier posts.

 

Refilling on a single occasion would make it difficult to prove the necessary intent to permanently deprive.

 

Refilling on multiple occasions would make that intent easier to prove with the passage of time. Spending money to acquire a device to facilitate refilling gas bottles that you have no legitimate right to refill (as opposed to borrowing one from an equally stupid mate) would reinforce that intent.

 

So, to give some examples, assuming that we refill every 3 months;

 

• I borrow an adaptor, and refill once - Not theft.
• I buy an adaptor, and refill myself on alternate refills - Not theft.
• I buy an adaptor, and refill twice - Probably not theft.
• I buy an adaptor, and refill eight times - Probably theft.
• I buy an adaptor, refill eight times, and shout my mouth off all over the internet about refilling gas bottles, and that I will keep on doing it until the bottle needs to be tested when I will exchange it - Pretty well certainly theft.

 

As an aside, given that these adaptors have no legitimate purpose and exist only to enable people to appropriate gas bottles they don't own, is owning one "going equipped"

[saltysplash]

 

 

As an aside, given that these adaptors have no legitimate purpose and exist only to enable people to appropriate gas bottles they don't own, is owning one "going equipped"

 

Only in the Mysterious world of Dave C Mayall

[mayalld]

You are assuming the answer to a is No.

 

Any person having hired their gas bottle or inherited one with a boat may well have a reasonable belief that they can refill the bottle.

 

Any person having hired a gas bottle will have signed an agreement with Calor, and cannot have a reasonable belief that they can refill the gas bottle.

 

Any person who has "inherited" the gas bottle didn't come by it legitimately himself. The previous boater had no right to part company with the bottle to him.

 

I would need to look at a bottle, but I think that they actually say on the bottle "property of and only to be refilled by"

[Paul C]

I think there's a frustration that something that SHOULD be criminal, isn't upon closer inspection. Although not in itself criminal, refilling Calor-type bottles oneself is clearly in breach of the bottle hire agreement so is clearly illegal (civil). It is also against the regulations which most filling stations use but their maximum sanction can only be to ban you from the filling station.

[nicknorman]

Although not in itself criminal, refilling Calor-type bottles oneself is clearly in breach of the bottle hire agreement so is clearly illegal (civil).

No, misuse of the word "illegal". Illegal means against the law. There is no law that says you can't refill a gas bottle just because the hire agreement says you can't. There is no law that says you can't breach your contract. Breach of contract is not a criminal matter = not illegal.

[Paul C]

I thought "illegal" could relate to a civil offence too?

[nicknorman]

I thought "illegal" could relate to a civil offence too?

What is a civil offence?

[Paul C]

The breach of contract.

[saltysplash]

 

Any person having hired a gas bottle will have signed an agreement with Calor, and cannot have a reasonable belief that they can refill the gas bottle.

 

Any person who has "inherited" the gas bottle didn't come by it legitimately himself. The previous boater had no right to part company with the bottle to him.

 

I would need to look at a bottle, but I think that they actually say on the bottle "property of and only to be refilled by"

As above, Breach of contract.

[nicknorman]

The breach of contract.

Of course you can use whatever terminology you like, but an "offence" is normally considered to be something done contrary to a specific law eg speeding. Something that the crown may come after you for. You have "offended" the people / crown by your failure to abide by the law.

 

However there is no law that says you can't refill calor's gas bottle. Calor have made their own rule to that effect, you agreed to it but then reneged on it. You haven't broken any law, you haven't offended the people or the crown.

 

So the concept of a "civil offence" doesn't really exist - for most people!

[Paul C]

Ok no worries, I think its just down to semantics.

[mayalld]

Of course you can use whatever terminology you like, but an "offence" is normally considered to be something done contrary to a specific law eg speeding. Something that the crown may come after you for. You have "offended" the people / crown by your failure to abide by the law.

 

However there is no law that says you can't refill calor's gas bottle. Calor have made their own rule to that effect, you agreed to it but then reneged on it. You haven't broken any law, you haven't offended the people or the crown.

 

So the concept of a "civil offence" doesn't really exist - for most people!

 

I would concur.

 

"Offence" is specifically breaking the criminal law, and follows from the wording employed in many Acts of parliament "shall be guilty of an offence". An offence needs no specific victim, merely that a breach of the law has occurred.

 

Civil Law isn't concerned with offences against the law, but with "wrongs" done to others.

 

So, refilling Calor's bottles;

 

Might, depending upon the degree, become theft.

 

IS the civil wrong of "conversion" (which holds true, even if the refiller believed he was entitled to do so, because this is a tort of strict liability)

 

Could be a breach of contract, but only against the person who originally signed the refill agreement.

[dor]

Just to put in another angle, there used to be a boatyard on the Shroppie who refilled your Calor propane cylinder rather than replace.

 

Now who is the 'thief' or otherwise illegally operating person, the boatyard or the boater?

[Paul C]

Just to put in another angle, there used to be a boatyard on the Shroppie who refilled your Calor propane cylinder rather than replace.

 

Now who is the 'thief' or otherwise illegally operating person, the boatyard or the boater?

 

Do you have more details on how they refilled them?