If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It's not theft as the money was willingly loaned/gifted by the person who had possession of it. The definition of theft is to remove the item from their possession without permission.
The only option, if negotiation doesn't work, is to go after them in the courts.
otter, if you win you get the court fees refunded, the debtor is responsible for payment. The court would allow offer installments if the debtor responded to the claim form, and most people don't. If they don't respond, or even miss just one payment, you can use other enforcement, such as bailiffs. Civil courts also work on the balance of probabilities, which means the burden of proof is much lower. The hard part would be proving it was a loan not a gift.
In a small claims court you can't claim legal costs back. Also as has been said it acts as an intermediary rather than a guarantee of your money back. So if he says he's broke they can get him to pay 50p for however long.
Maybe say to him 'I really need the money back and if you're not prepared to start paying back I will have to get the courts involved'. May scare him into action.
I lent a uni friend £65 for a night out back in year 2000. It took him 8 months to give it back, but he did give me an extra £5 for the troubles, which was very kind of him.
How? It wasn't as if he went into his house and took the money was it?
I'm going to threaten him if he doesn't pay up I can issue a court order or whatever against him which will destroy his credit rating and he'll never be able to get a mortgage. Obviously I won't bother actually doing this, but might make him jump.
One thing going to Uni and more over staying in shared uni accommodation is how different people's personal ethics are - credit card company sent around just such a bloke to our flat to find our flat mate that ran off after maxing out his credit card
its not so much about personal ethics as being a complete arse-hole. if he thought what he was doing was right (ethical) why did he run off? he knew it was wrong and that's theft.
if you get judgment against a debtor then the debtor is liable for the court fees you incurred in submitting the n1. the circumstances of the judgment are irrelevant- if you get a ccj the debtor has to stump up the court fee as part of the ccj.
if you win against a debtor in the county court small claims track, you will get the court fee refunded, and if you took legal advice in making the claim you can usually claim up to about £200 costs as part of the ccj. the court would make the decision on whether to award costs.
a ccj doesnt guarantee that you get the money back, and if the debtor submits all the forms at the right time the court will decide on a repayment plan. the minimum offer would be £1 a month, but the court decides what the debtor can afford, and will order more if the income is there.
a lot of debtors dont submit the forms properly, though, and if they dont you can get judgment in default. this means that the ccj is for the whole amount, and it is payable immediately (ie the court orders one installment for the full amount).
if the debtor misses even just one instalment you can get a warrant of execution from the court, and bailiffs will be sent out to the debtor's address to levy goods. you can also take out other enforcement action, such as getting a charging order against property that the debtor owns.
It's still theft under the 1968 Theft Act.
If you borrow something from someone and refuse to give it back, it can still be considered theft.
Theft - Section 1 (1) Theft Act 1968
"Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permenantly depriving the other of it."
He hasn't refused to give it back, no time frame was set for it to be given back by, and the person who has borrowed the money has continued to say he will give it back when he has it available.
Showing that regardless of how it appears to us, the intention to permenantly deprive isn't there.
So no in the OPs case it's not theft.