'uman caravan rights

[Gob]

A couple whose £30,000 caravan was stolen have been told a traveller family now living in it cannot be removed because it would breach their human rights.




Kathleen McClelland and her partner Michael Curry spent their life savings on the top-of-the-range camper and were devastated when it vanished from the secure site where they kept it. When police eventually found the 26ft-long Bailey Louisiana caravan 18 months later, its owners were told a traveller couple and their two young children were living in it only ten miles from their home in Surrey.

Their initial relief turned to outrage, however, when the police said they had ‘no lawful powers’ to get it back.
They were told their only option was to begin costly civil proceedings against the family, which they say they cannot afford. Mrs McClelland and Mr Curry had spent £10,000 improving the £20,000 caravan, including putting in a widescreen TV. They bought the vehicle on hire purchase – and still have to make monthly payments of £250 for the next two years.

Hospital ward clerk Mrs McClelland, 68, said: ‘Why should we have to pay for someone else to live in our brand new caravan? That was for our pleasure in our older years. ‘The police said that removing the family would breach their human rights and that they would have to be rehoused before it could be seized. We spent all our retirement money on that caravan because we thought it would last us a lifetime. We’re absolutely devastated. It seems as though no one cares about our human rights.

[Scooter]

Of course, nothing in the letter from the police saying anything about the any "breach of human rights".

The actual reason that the police could not lay criminal charges or recover the caravan:

ecause officers did not have evidence that the current occupier knew the caravan was stolen when he allegedly purchased it, he could not be prosecuted and the force said it was unable to seize it.

Buried deep into the article, because it doesn't sell anywhere close to as many papers as another bogus claim of human rights law being abused.

[Gob]

I'd inform the police that I was going around to reclaim it, and attempt to tow it away.

[Scooter]

Why can't they just file a civil claim? If the current occupiers do not have anything that looks like a legitimate bill of sale and some way of proving that they had the funds to buy the thing, then it will be returned to its rightful owners.

And there are good reasons why we don't allow people with a grievance against someone else from resorting to self-help.

[Gob]

Why can't they just file a civil claim? If the current occupiers do not have anything that looks like a legitimate bill of sale and some way of proving that they had the funds to buy the thing, then it will be returned to its rightful owners.

Cost? They woud not get any help with the claim as they are decent, hard working, honest, people, the pikeys however would get a heap of help, all free, from the state.

[Scooter]

What "help" would they get to defend against a civil claim? I haven't heard of such a scheme in any country.

[Guinevere]

No right to counsel in a civil matter, Gob. Let 'em try and defend it.

[Gob]

Civil legal aid will only be routinely available in cases where life or liberty is at stake under plans unveiled by the Justice Secretary today.

Kenneth Clarke said funding will be axed for a wide range of disputes, including those over relationship break-ups, school admissions and expulsions, as well as clinical negligence in a bid to save £350 million over the next four years.

But asylum cases, mental health cases and debt and housing matters where someone's home is at immediate risk will all still be funded.

Add into this all the state funded support systems that pikeys have, and the couple are on a hdiing to nothing.

[Scooter]

I'm assuming that "where someone's home is at immediate risk" means they will have to prove that it is their home in order to access legal aid.

[Scooter]

Oh, lookie here:

Squatters will no longer get legal aid to fight home owners trying to evict them from their properties.

Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said the proposals will close a loophole in the law that allows squatters to use legal aid to fight evictions in court, leaving landlords to foot the bill for their own legal costs.

[Gob]

These are noty squatters but "I claim to own this caravan" types though, aren't they? These are thieving gypos.

[MajGenl.Meade]

While I was in the UK there was an incident at an amateur cricket pitch where one or two caravans decided it was a good place to set up their rubbish tip (er.... homes and children). Fortunately the police were able to move them on because the pitch had a scheduled "all-community event' (not cricket) pending and apparently in such cases there is power to move anyone who is preventing the event from happening. In order to stop further incursions after the children's event, a group of locals wielding cricket bats blocked the entrance to the pitch until the (ahem) "travellers" continued their travels.

"Reality" TV seems to be totally uninterested in My Big Fat Gypsy Social Service Breaking, Pig Ignorant Selfish, Community Destroying Bastardry. Shame - I might watch that.

On this caravan theft one, stolen property (when found) such as a car is, according to UK law, returned to the owner by the authorities without compensation for the unfortunate bugger who "bought" it - whether they knew it was stolen or not is immaterial. I suppose in the case of a "home" it is regarded as too antisocial to turn out Tiny Tim and the other unfortunates. However, why cannot the local council find some temporary accommodation for these (doubtless) wonderful people - a rusty old Ford Prefect in some poor farmer's wheatfield should do the trick

Meade

[Big RR]

Meade--generally, I think you are right; however, if the original owner did something to facilitate the sale (like not doing something to prevent it, e.g.), that might tip the balance. It's possible some other facts could be present here as well; if the owner's brother in law were to sell it to the occupants it could be quite different than if a stranger did. Further, caravans are trailers designed to be towed, correct? If so, I would imagine they are registered and titled through motor vehicle, and if the owners did not report the theft to the motor vehicle department, or if they kept the title in the caravan, making it much easier to register, these could be relevant facts as well.

IMHO, these factors could be a significant reason why the police chose not to intervene. They have no way of determining the ownership of the caravan, and want to leave it to the courts to decide. Sure it will cost the owners something, but then anyone who can pay $10,000 out of pocket to improve a $20,000 caravan on which they owe $6000 (and why the bank isn't seeking immediate repayment of all monies due, since the property securing the loan is gone, escapes me) should have some resources; indeed, I would think the insurance company would help (and I doubt the owners could have financed the caravan without insurance--unless they already collected on the policy, in which case they should have some money to pursue its return).

[Daisy]

Carvans are registered on their own scheme C.R.I.S. http://www.cris.co.uk/ whilst they do have the vehicle towing numberplate repeated on the rear, these are easily removed and replaced.

Surprising though if you'd bought a 20K caravan and spent 10K on improvement why wouldn't you buy insurance for it? Mine is insured to the value of the van and contents to a value of 5K.

[Big RR]

And, as I said, I'd bet they couldn't finance it without insurance.

And the website indicates that the CRIS maintains some sort of title registry, which would make purchasing a properly reported stolen vehicle absent some sort of irregularity. Something seems strange here.

[Daisy]

The article is from the Daily Mail... they've never let the facts get in the way of a good "slur on a minority" story.

This is one for you Gob

http://www.shouldireadthedailymail.com/

[Daisy]

Also here in the UK you can finance without Payment Protection Insurance. In fact many lenders forced consumers to have this type of insurance illegally, and now they're having to pay it all back.

[Big RR]

Really, I believe in the US (at least in most states) the opposite is true and the lender can require insurance. Even without the requirement, it's pretty silly to go without it for a major investment.

[Sue U]

http://www.shouldireadthedailymail.com/

[Guinevere]

The article is from the Daily Mail... they've never let the facts get in the way of a good "slur on a minority" story.

This is one for you Gob

http://www.shouldireadthedailymail.com/

Whether or not they are minorities or "thieving gypos" is not relevant to any of the ownership questions, of course. As for thieving -- well that also has to be proved, too. 18 months later, there could be many many hands through which the caravan passed.

Is there a link to the actual article, not just the bits and pieces posted above?