I hope this thread will give people some ideas of what people should look out for when buying a second hand eBike or parts, or even a new eBike from someone who is not a dealer or known to them, .

 

I have been criticised by a minority for being a bit too vigilant in my due diligence recently, but lets forget about that and move on to benefit others, I hope dealers will help with tips on what to look out for from their experience and hopefully we can deter thefts, I also hope that security can also be included to stop thefts in the first place. I will start with my views.

 

When buying a bike or parts be alert to:

1. You do not know the seller

2. The bike or parts are being offered very cheaply

3. The seller says they were given the bike or parts

4. There is no documentation of initial purchase of bike or parts

5. When you question any of the above the seller goes on the defensive

You don't need any of that when you can look to the left and see that someone has thousands of posts on the forum since 2007. It's called due intelligence.

There are respected people who have been in their jobs for years, for example perhaps in accounts, who for some reason or another find a way of circumventing the system and start to steal, it gets bigger and bigger, nobody would dream it was them but one day their greed is too much and they get caught, shock horror I would never have suspected him or her, they have been here for 30yrs

 

This is real life, at the end of the day it is up to you to be satisfied as to who you are dealing with and what you are buying, and you who will be standing in court explaining your actions. I don't think anyone should be criticised for checking people and things out to ensure they are happy, it would be good to see some examples on here of people being caught out or suspicious, that in turn will help us all.

 

Please use this thread as a serious crime prevention tool to help us all.

You messed up by insulting one of our longest established members. Admit your crime, take the criticism and move on. There's no point in trying to dig yourself in deeper

There are respected people who have been in their jobs for years, for example perhaps in accounts, who for some reason or another find a way of circumventing the system and start to steal, it gets bigger and bigger, nobody would dream it was them but one day their greed is too much and they get caught, shock horror I would never have suspected him or her, they have been here for 30yrs

So this is how you afford your 'designer' lifestyle..... I imagine you are yet to be caught though, am I right?

I hope this thread will give people some ideas of what people should look out for when buying a second hand eBike or parts, or even a new eBike from someone who is not a dealer or known to them, .

 

I have been criticised by a minority for being a bit too vigilant in my due diligence recently, but lets forget about that and move on to benefit others, I hope dealers will help with tips on what to look out for from their experience and hopefully we can deter thefts, I also hope that security can also be included to stop thefts in the first place. I will start with my views.

 

When buying a bike or parts be alert to:

1. You do not know the seller

2. The bike or parts are being offered very cheaply

3. The seller says they were given the bike or parts

4. There is no documentation of initial purchase of bike or parts

5. When you question any of the above the seller goes on the defensive

Do you never give up? FFS go and find another forum to annoy. Or, better still, tell your mother to take your computer away until you mature a bit.

Can we please keep this thread on topic.

 

And could the kids who are throwing their toys out of the pram please put them back in.

 

Slanderous comments about me are not useful and if the admin of the forum are aware of the law then I suggest they get them removed ASAP. I have never made any slanderous comments only doing what every cyclist buying a bike SHOULD do, due diligence. All is clear in another locked thread, naivety is dangerous, I suggest some of you keep a watch on this thread and learn about real life, the dangers out there, the law and consequences of handling stolen goods. To slag someone off for being careful is disgraceful and not the brightest thing to be allowed.

 

Have a pleasant evening, and no more nonsense on here please!

As I said before there's a massive difference between due diligence and libellous inference.

 

Please also look up the meaning of words if you're going to use them. It's practically impossible to slander someone by written posts. It's called libel. Slander is spoken.

 

If you want any further legal advice I charge £250 an hour plus VAT.

 

 

Can we please keep this thread on topic.

 

And could the kids who are throwing their toys out of the pram please put them back in.

 

Slanderous comments about me are not useful and if the admin of the forum are aware of the law then I suggest they get them removed ASAP. I have never made any slanderous comments only doing what every cyclist buying a bike SHOULD do, due diligence. All is clear in another locked thread, naivety is dangerous, I suggest some of you keep a watch on this thread and learn about real life, the dangers out there, the law and consequences

stolen bikes go for 100 quid for every 1000 quid they are worth so a 5k bike goes for 500 quid.

 

after they are sold they get stripped down and all parts sold on there own so no way to find out if they was stolen or not frames go for respray then kept out of site until its forgotten about then sold on cheap months if not years later or just go in the skip depending on make.

 

a smart bike is not even worth taking so a stolen one is worth about 50 quid.

On topic:

 

If buying a pedelec from a trader who isn't personally known, ask in this pedelecs forum if anything is known about them.

 

The worth of any report received about them can be assessed from the responder's length of time in the forum and their number of posts. A long and extensive record is a reliable guide since they have to be genuine to survive in a forum where 80% of the members are over 40 years of age with the experience that brings.

 

And of course when buying online in such as ebay, check the sellers record. If after that one is still in two minds, again check with this forum's members so they can use their often very long experience in judgment..

 

There are other safeguards already in place. For example stolen pedelecs will often be missing a charger or keys, so some importers/agents keep records of all their brands of e-bikes sold and check the status of anyone wanting to buy a charger or keys. This has led to detection and arrest in the past.

 

Agents/importers and others often post in here cases of stolen e-bikes so we are prewarned of their presence with full details. We have a specific notification forum for this purpose on this link.

.

As I said before there's a massive difference between due diligence and libellous inference.

 

Please also look up the meaning of words if you're going to use them. It's practically impossible to slander someone by written posts. It's called libel. Slander is spoken.

 

If you want any further legal advice I charge £250 an hour plus VAT.

Fantastic, then please clearly explain what is wrong in doing due diligence when buying bike, if you buy a car most people will do a check that checks if its lost or stolen, got credit against it or been right off, if I do that check when you are selling me a car is that inferring you have stolen it? As I am not used to buying second hand bikes all I asked was if there was a record of stolen bikes recorded and how you could get a smart water reader, I had no idea who the seller was and in any case would make my own enquiries, THAT is being careful.

 

My view on things:

The bike being sold was not a standard second hand sale, there were a lot of oddities about it, firstly it appeared for sale on my thread by someone I personally didn't know, it was cheaper than you would expect, I saw what was offered and became suspicious due to its condition, the low mileage and the fact that electrics had been changed over after so few miles, when I raised a question i was told they had been given it as a gift, Ok that was slightly alleviated when I asked some questions but then decided the risk was too high due to its age and non use due to the cost of parts, I was then prompted again on my thread by another sale push, I revisited it and thought it was worth further investigation as perhaps I could buy it for spares. I then arranged to visit this morning to view the bike, that was overtaken by someone else on the forum who chipped in on the thread and made an offer on the bike, I thought that was cheeky when I was going to see the bike with the intention of more than likely buying it, but thats life. Due to the toys out of prams this morning and the seller stating he had received an offer and would only take £100 increments I stated I was no longer interested in the bike, it has apparently now been sold through my thread.

 

I await your intellectual reply! and by the way I can assure you that charging only £250 an hour plus VAT per hour will not have you retiring any time soon, well not in London!

Edited September 19, 20169 yr by Smart eBiker

Slanderous comments about me are not useful and if the admin of the forum are aware of the law then I suggest they get them removed ASAP.

Glass houses and stones my friend, glass houses and stones....

At the end of the day its easy to say the wrong thing and cause offence.. I have done it many times, and held my hand up with an apology. It doesnt matter who is in the right or who is in the wrong.. Its a matter of common courtesy to apologise for any upset caused.

Suggest you re read your comment on the other thread. If then you can't see your mistake then I'm sorry for you. I have no intention to further educate you as I'm sure it's a waste of my time.

I'm very comfortably retired already and am pleased to be out of the City.

The well-respected OP seems concerned the rest of may get into unwitting bother if we buy stolen goods.

 

But that is most unlikely given that to be guilty of the offence of handing, you must have bought the goods 'knowing or believing' them to be stolen.

 

Proving guilty knowledge is notoriously difficult - you are asking a jury to be satisfied so that they are sure of something that is alleged to have been in the mind of the defendant.

 

No one can know what another person is thinking, but that's what you are asking the jurors to decide upon.

 

Practically, provided you don't buy something that is obviously stolen there won't be any criminal proceedings against you.

 

One might ask how there are any handling stolen goods convictions.

 

They will usually rely on other evidence, such as the stolen goods being found in possession of a friend of the thief, particularly if the goods came into the friend's possession a short time after the theft.

 

A guilty plea to handling is often made in response to dropping the more serious charge of burglary.

 

In those cases, the defendant's guilty knowledge is not tested because he is convicted by his plea.

The well-respected OP seems concerned the rest of may get into unwitting bother if we buy stolen goods.

 

But that is most unlikely given that to be guilty of the offence of handing, you must have bought the goods 'knowing or believing' them to be stolen.

 

Proving guilty knowledge is notoriously difficult - you are asking a jury to be satisfied so that they are sure of something that is alleged to have been in the mind of the defendant.

 

No one can know what another person is thinking, but that's what you are asking the jurors to decide upon.

 

Practically, provided you don't buy something that is obviously stolen there won't be any criminal proceedings against you.

 

One might ask how there are any handling stolen goods convictions.

 

They will usually rely on other evidence, such as the stolen goods being found in possession of a friend of the thief, particularly if the goods came into the friend's possession a short time after the theft.

 

A guilty plea to handling is often made in response to dropping the more serious charge of burglary.

 

In those cases, the defendant's guilty knowledge is not tested because he is convicted by his plea.

I refer you to my initial post and points 1 - 5, THAT is the key points to which you need to cover as THEY could prove whether or not you 'knew or believed' the goods were stolen, if you cover those then a jury would have a difficult job convicting you.

 

I am trying to be helpful, if people spent more time contributing in a worthwhile way rather than bitching and slagging others off trying to prove points then we may all learn something, there is great experience on here lets use it!

 

Now again please keep on topic or go and start your own slagging off thread somewhere else on the forum and keep out of mine, nobody MAKES you read mine!

Edited September 19, 20169 yr by Smart eBiker

I hope this thread will give people some ideas of what people should look out for when buying a second hand eBike or parts, or even a new eBike from someone who is not a dealer or known to them, .

 

I have been criticised by a minority for being a bit too vigilant in my due diligence recently, but lets forget about that and move on to benefit others, I hope dealers will help with tips on what to look out for from their experience and hopefully we can deter thefts, I also hope that security can also be included to stop thefts in the first place. I will start with my views.

 

When buying a bike or parts be alert to:

1. You do not know the seller

2. The bike or parts are being offered very cheaply

3. The seller says they were given the bike or parts

4. There is no documentation of initial purchase of bike or parts

5. When you question any of the above the seller goes on the defensive

 

 

I'm not sure what's gone off previously to prompt this, but I think you have a point.

 

I bought an altimeter / vario off a long term and "respected" member of another club / forum. The instruments were described as being in perfect working order and they were not cheap. They turned out to be broken inaccurate pieces of junk. So bad that they were actually dangerous. The seller was completely uncooperative after the sale, but he did respond positively to a personal visit to review his advert and refund policy.

 

So, I think it's right to be careful when buying second hand. I've been on this forum a long time and have a pretty good idea who's opinion I trust, but not everyone has been.

 

You can come a cropper in terms of handling stolen goods if you pay a silly price for something which is clearly of higher value, so it is sensible to pause and have a think before buying. Just common sense really.

 

I am trying to be helpful, i!

 

No you're not, you're trying to cover your arse after a rather stupid post you made on another thread.

Just admit it was stupid and move on. oh, and stop all the fantasising about your life. no one cares.

No you're not, you're trying to cover your arse after a rather stupid post you made on another thread.

Just admit it was stupid and move on. oh, and stop all the fantasising about your life. no one cares.

Well move off my thread and create your own, your not adding anything useful and have already been warned about staying on topic!

Let's all do the SMART thing. Two words.. ignore list..

Ensure you are able to cover your Mens Rea!

 

 

Section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 provides:

 

"(1) A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.

 

(2) A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years."

 

ACTUS REUS

1. STOLEN GOODS

Section 34(2)(b) states that goods includes money and every other description of property, except land, and includes things severed from the land by stealing.

 

'Stolen goods' means goods which have been stolen (contrary to s1) or obtained by deception (contrary to s15) or by blackmail (contrary to s21): s24(4).

 

Goods 'stolen' in a foreign country (including Scotland and N. Ireland) are stolen goods if they were appropriated or obtained abroad in such a way as to satisfy the requirements of ss 1, 15 or 21 and the stealing was criminal by the law of the foreign country in question: s24(1).

 

2. WHEN GOODS CEASE TO BE STOLEN

The goods must not only have been stolen, but must also remain stolen at the time of the handling. Section 24(3) provides that no goods which have been stolen are to be regarded as having continued to be stolen after one of the following events has occurred:

 

After they have been restored to the person from whom they were stolen or to other lawful possession or custody. After the person from whom they were stolen and any other person claiming through him have otherwise ceased as regards those goods to have any right to restitution in respect of the theft.

 

3. PROCEEDS OF STOLEN GOODS

References to 'stolen goods' include the proceeds of dealings with such goods by the thief or a handler. Section 24(2) provides that references to stolen goods:

 

"include, in addition to the goods originally stolen and parts of them (whether in their original state or not), -

 

(a) any other goods which directly or indirectly represent or have at any time represented the stolen goods in the hands of the thief as being the proceeds of any disposal or realisation of the whole or part of the goods stolen or of goods so representing the stolen goods; and (b) any other goods which directly or indirectly represent or have at any time represented the stolen goods in the hands of a handler of the stolen goods or any part of them as being the proceeds of any disposal or realisation of the whole or part of the stolen goods handled by him or of goods so representing them."

 

4. FORMS OF HANDLING

The definition of the offence in s22(1) actually comprises 18 different forms of handling:

 

a) Receiving

 

b) Arranging to receive

 

c) Undertaking the retention, removal, disposal or realisation of stolen goods for the benefit of another (four forms).

 

d) Assisting in the retention, removal, disposal or realisation of stolen goods by another (four forms).

 

e) Arranging to undertake or assist in the retention, removal, disposal or realisation of stolen goods by or for the benefit of another (eight forms).

 

5. OTHERWISE THAN IN THE COURSE OF THE STEALING

Section 22(1) states that the handling must have been 'otherwise than in the course of the stealing'. This refers to the stealing by which the goods originally became stolen goods and means that the original thief is not guilty of handling so long as the stealing continues, nor is one of joint thieves, even in respect of the assistance he gives to the other or others. However, once the course of the stealing has ended, the original thief of the goods can be convicted of handling them.

 

MENS REA

1. KNOWLEDGE OR BELIEF

On the wording of s22(1) the accused must either know or believe that the goods are stolen at the time of the act of handling alleged. The Court of Appeal held in R v Hall (1985) 81 Cr App R 260:

 

A person knows that goods are stolen if he has actual knowledge of this, or if he is told of this by someone with first-hand knowledge (eg, by the thief himself). 'Belief' was something short of knowledge, and applied to the situation where the person could not say for certain that the goods were stolen, but there was no other reasonable conclusion in the light of all the circumstances.

 

2. DISHONESTY

The prosecution must also prove that, when he handled the goods, the accused was dishonest. This is an issue to be decided by the jury and the Ghosh guidelines will apply. Consequently, a person would not be guilty of handling stolen goods, even if he knew them to be stolen, if he acquired them in order to return them to the owner, or to hand them over to the police, because of the absence of dishonesty.

 

3. PROOF OF KNOWLEDGE OR BELIEF

Section 27(3) provides that the following evidence (which would not otherwise be admissible under the law of evidence) is admissible for the purpose of proving that the accused knew or believed the goods to be stolen goods:

 

Evidence that he has been involved in handling stolen goods from any theft within the last 12 months; and Evidence that he has been convicted of theft or handling stolen goods within the last five years.

Let's all do the SMART thing. Two words.. ignore list..

Well get on with it and get off the thread, how many times do you need to be told, there is room on the forum for everyone, off you go, nobody is making you stay! why even open and read it?

Well move off my thread and create your own, your not adding anything useful and have already been warned about staying on topic!

Warned? hehe

Well get on with it and get off the thread, how many times do you need to be told, there is room on the forum for everyone, off you go, nobody is making you stay! why even open and read it?

 

Could do with some new 'response' buttons on here...

The best advice I can give everyone is that whenever an idiot starts a thread it's generally a good idea to not post on it and just ignore them and hopefully they will just go away.