Theft of kit - how much can you be billed ?

#1
Ladies and Gents,

A friend of mine, lets call him ..erm smudge has had an expensive bit of kit stolen from his duty vehicle.

He has reported the theft to the RMP, however the QM is trying to bill him £600 for a replacement. Is this legal? And i'm sure I read / heard a rumour that you can only be billed upto 10% of the total cost of the item.

The piece of kit, is of no use to anyone really, (OPSEC/PERSEC prevents me from naming said item) so he hasn't put it on e-bay!

Anyone shed any light on this subject?

Cheers

MB
 
#2
The piece of kit, is of no use to anyone really, (OPSEC/PERSEC prevents me from naming said item) so he hasn't put it on e-bay!
And 3/4 of the shoite that's knocked out on the Bay of E is????
 
#3
£600 may well be 10%! Has the CoC been informed of the incident? If the kit was L or P class then there may well be a Board of Enquiry to investigate the loss. Was the vehicle in a secure area? Was the vehicle secured? Was the kit of a sensitive nature? Can the loss be deemed negligent. Who's signature was the kit out on? Is it an RNE?

Your friend needs to get his boots in the QM's in tray and ask him/her for some advice on the best way to resolve this.

pricing of materiel: JSP 336 Vol 12 Pt 1 Pam 1-1 sect 1 annex A
 
#4
If Sec means you can't name the item of equipment then it no doubt has some inherent protective marking yes? In which case the kit had to be in a secure area or guarded perhaps? If it was in a secure area then they can hardly be held responsible unless they'd not followed SOPs.
 
#5
Depending on what the QM's final decision is you or your mate needs to record all details of the theft and get the crime number from RMP. He then should be able to claim it back from his insurance (minus the £50). I had a lot of STTE/ET items stolen by some toe rag four years ago from a secured cage in my LAD. I still hope the thieving tw*t has accidently drilled a hole in his knees or gonads with the drill he stole.
 
#6
At issue is whether a loss has been incurred, rather than an unofficial reallocation of an expensive or attractive item from one part of the Ministry of Defence to another part of the Ministry of Defence by an employee of the Ministry of Defence acting outside of the scope of his authority. In other words, what has to be proved is whether the Secretary of State for Defence has actually been deprived of Public Property or whether it has just been moved about within it! Since unless there is a loss, there can be no recovery for a loss!

If loss to the Secretary of State for Defence has been proven then the legal basis of civil recovery for it is culpable neglect on the part of the individual in whose charge it was.

Culpable neglect on the part of the individual must be shown to have existed as a matter of demonstrable reality rather than being presumed to exist as a matter of speculative assertion. The imperatives of forensic accounting backed up by the coercive application of seniority does not form a legitimate legal base upon which an individual is to be deprived of his property by way of restitution for a blameless act and it will be blameless unless and until the contrary is proved.

The individual is entitled to at least a basic level of fairness in proceedings and may not be used as a conveniently available cash machine for the recovery of economic loss arising, for example out of systemic neglect on the part of his employers.
 
#7
Iolis said:
At issue is whether a loss has been incurred, rather than an unofficial reallocation of an expensive or attractive item from one part of the Ministry of Defence to another part of the Ministry of Defence by an employee of the Ministry of Defence acting outside of the scope of his authority. In other words, what has to be proved is whether the Secretary of State for Defence has actually been deprived of Public Property or whether it has just been moved about within it! Since unless there is a loss, there can be no recovery for a loss!

If loss to the Secretary of State for Defence has been proven then the legal basis of civil recovery for it is culpable neglect on the part of the individual in whose charge it was.

Culpable neglect on the part of the individual must be shown to have existed as a matter of demonstrable reality rather than being presumed to exist as a matter of speculative assertion. The imperatives of forensic accounting backed up by the coercive application of seniority does not form a legitimate legal base upon which an individual is to be deprived of his property by way of restitution for a blameless act and it will be blameless unless and until the contrary is proved.

The individual is entitled to at least a basic level of fairness in proceedings and may not be used as a conveniently available cash machine for the recovery of economic loss arising, for example out of systemic neglect on the part of his employers.
A bit long winded and not exactly true. It doesn't really matter if it was stolen and taken away, or if it was stolen and taken to another unit or individual and is still being used by some department of the MoD.

The bottom line is, if you signed for it and you can't produce said item when the SQMS or QM wants to check it.... you can be billed for its loss.
 
#8
I disagree.

There is no legal basis whatsoever for depriving an individual of his property to effect a recovery for loss which has not been brought about by his culpable neglect but has arisen out of the criminal act of another.

The presentation of a bill to an individual by a unit quartermaster imposes no correlative obligation upon an individual to meet that demand in the absence of due process.

It is that sort of official mentality of 'pay up and shut up' and 'you cant beat the system' that results in the MOD being taken to domestic and European Courts time and time again and meeting expensive out of court settlements that come out of the pocket of the taxpayer!

That an individual cannot be unlawfully deprived of his property has been around since the 12th Century.

That's the bottom line!
 
#9
if you borrow rent etc equipment and it goes missing when in your care you are in charge of it.

Therefore you are due for the full cost, which is why you should have kit insurance.

Say for example you rent a TV from a rental firm (Which in essence is the same thing) and it gets nicked from your house, you will be liable for the ful cost to the rental firm they wont just write the cost of you must pay it, which is why you should have insurance.

So go ahead claim for it on insurance and then pay for it with that money.
 
#10
There is no legal basis whatsoever for depriving an individual of his property to effect a recovery for loss which has not been brought about by his culpable neglect but has arisen out of the criminal act of another.
So if the individual who has signed for, and in so doing has taken responsibility for that kit, cannot produce that kit when asked for it by the authority that issued it, what is supposed to be done? Just allow the tax payer to pick up the complete bill? Not recoup at least some of the cost from the individual which at the very least instill a little responsibility and teach him (or her) to look after the kit that has been put on their charge.

You sound like the typical 'barrack room lawyer' who has decided that the system should never win, to the detriment of that system and that individuals have no responsibilities. It is that very attitude in my opinion that is why this chav filled country is going down hill so quickly.

I suppose if you buy something from a shop and lose it you would expect the shop to replace it free of charge.
 
#11
Garthy said:
if you borrow rent etc equipment and it goes missing when in your care you are in charge of it.

Therefore you are due for the full cost, which is why you should have kit insurance.

Say for example you rent a TV from a rental firm (Which in essence is the same thing) and it gets nicked from your house, you will be liable for the ful cost to the rental firm they wont just write the cost of you must pay it, which is why you should have insurance.

So go ahead claim for it on insurance and then pay for it with that money.
Thank you Garthy, the rental TV is a very good analogy.
 
#12
Firstly the QM cannot and should not bill anyone for the kit until an investigation takes place.

He has to write it off pending said investigation and use that write off as authority to demand a replacement.

Once the investigation has been completed and any culpability proven only then should bills be made.

Even if the individual was culpaple, was the item old? was it servicable at the time of theft? A good QM could quite legally reduce the cost to the soldier drastically. Only if he's being a cnut or if the soildier concerned is a cnut should the full value be recovered.

After all, if your 10 year old Astra is nicked. Do the insurance company pay for a new Astra to replace it? Do the F8ck. Same principle applies with kit.
 
#13
Iolis said:
At issue is whether a loss has been incurred, rather than an unofficial reallocation of an expensive or attractive item from one part of the Ministry of Defence to another part of the Ministry of Defence by an employee of the Ministry of Defence acting outside of the scope of his authority. In other words, what has to be proved is whether the Secretary of State for Defence has actually been deprived of Public Property or whether it has just been moved about within it! Since unless there is a loss, there can be no recovery for a loss!

If loss to the Secretary of State for Defence has been proven then the legal basis of civil recovery for it is culpable neglect on the part of the individual in whose charge it was.

Culpable neglect on the part of the individual must be shown to have existed as a matter of demonstrable reality rather than being presumed to exist as a matter of speculative assertion. The imperatives of forensic accounting backed up by the coercive application of seniority does not form a legitimate legal base upon which an individual is to be deprived of his property by way of restitution for a blameless act and it will be blameless unless and until the contrary is proved.

The individual is entitled to at least a basic level of fairness in proceedings and may not be used as a conveniently available cash machine for the recovery of economic loss arising, for example out of systemic neglect on the part of his employers.
i'd love to see you stand up and try that load of bollocks in the Army :)
 
#14
I'm sure most QMs would just love to bill people like Iolis for 100% even if they could legally get it down to much, much less.

Barrack room lawyers usually get themselves into more trouble than others when they start shouting that things should be done by the book. It usually turns out that 'the book' can a mighty weapon and they never seem to know what's in it as well as they think that they do..... and never as well as the QM who's had his head in it for years.

QMs will normally help when asked and if you accept your talking to. Try to tell them they don't know what they are doing or that they are not sticking to the rules and they will use the rules to the letter.... and not to your benefit. And there will be nobody to blame but yourself.
 
#15
Garthy said:
if you borrow rent etc equipment and it goes missing when in your care you are in charge of it.

Therefore you are due for the full cost, which is why you should have kit insurance.

Say for example you rent a TV from a rental firm (Which in essence is the same thing) and it gets nicked from your house, you will be liable for the ful cost to the rental firm they wont just write the cost of you must pay it, which is why you should have insurance.

So go ahead claim for it on insurance and then pay for it with that money.
I disagree. You are liable for loss caused by your culpable neglect.

I keep coming up against this a priori reasoning, 'you have it therefore you are responsible for it's loss!

In your analogy of the rental TV you are only bound by what you agree to be bound by which will usually take the form of a rental agreement. If an agreement contained standard wording to the effct that the hirer is liable for loss or damage regardless of the circumstances, the clause would be struck down as ineffective, a fortiori if the hirer is already insured against the risk of loss.

The Army takes a simplistic approach - pay up or else!
 
#16
Plant-Pilot said:
I'm sure most QMs would just love to bill people like Iolis for 100% even if they could legally get it down to much, much less.

Barrack room lawyers usually get themselves into more trouble than others when they start shouting that things should be done by the book. It usually turns out that 'the book' can a mighty weapon and they never seem to know what's in it as well as they think that they do..... and never as well as the QM who's had his head in it for years.

QMs will normally help when asked and if you accept your talking to. Try to tell them they don't know what they are doing or that they are not sticking to the rules and they will use the rules to the letter.... and not to your benefit. And there will be nobody to blame but yourself.
I love the term: "Barrack Room Lawyer", usually used in the perjorative sense by those who rely on the brute force of arbitrary authority and greatly inconvenienced when they are required to justify it!

I have seen slavish adherence to the book! I have also seen it destroyed and re-written in the light of judgements to the contrary!

I have also seen those who use arbitrary authority with impunity cry a different tune when they are themselves subject to it and it is the 'Barrack Room Lawyers' in the offices down the road they turn to for redress!
 
#17
CRmeansCeilingReached said:
Iolis said:
At issue is whether a loss has been incurred, rather than an unofficial reallocation of an expensive or attractive item from one part of the Ministry of Defence to another part of the Ministry of Defence by an employee of the Ministry of Defence acting outside of the scope of his authority. In other words, what has to be proved is whether the Secretary of State for Defence has actually been deprived of Public Property or whether it has just been moved about within it! Since unless there is a loss, there can be no recovery for a loss!

If loss to the Secretary of State for Defence has been proven then the legal basis of civil recovery for it is culpable neglect on the part of the individual in whose charge it was.

Culpable neglect on the part of the individual must be shown to have existed as a matter of demonstrable reality rather than being presumed to exist as a matter of speculative assertion. The imperatives of forensic accounting backed up by the coercive application of seniority does not form a legitimate legal base upon which an individual is to be deprived of his property by way of restitution for a blameless act and it will be blameless unless and until the contrary is proved.

The individual is entitled to at least a basic level of fairness in proceedings and may not be used as a conveniently available cash machine for the recovery of economic loss arising, for example out of systemic neglect on the part of his employers.
i'd love to see you stand up and try that load of bollocks in the Army :)


Actually I have!

A young man charged with the theft of a landrover canopy from a vehicle park in Catterick to replace the one on his own vehicle which was U/S!

He argued that he had stolen nothing - he too was told he was talking Bollocks!

As usual, the Army knew best and insisted on an expensive Court Martial!

The prosecution collapsed because it was unable to make out the ingredients of the charge of theft since it could not be shown that the Secretary of State for Defence had actually been permanantly deprived of anything at all. The Secretary of State may have been unhappy about his kit being moved about but it could not be said that he was deprived of it!
 
#18
Plant-Pilot said:
There is no legal basis whatsoever for depriving an individual of his property to effect a recovery for loss which has not been brought about by his culpable neglect but has arisen out of the criminal act of another.
So if the individual who has signed for, and in so doing has taken responsibility for that kit, cannot produce that kit when asked for it by the authority that issued it, what is supposed to be done? Just allow the tax payer to pick up the complete bill? Not recoup at least some of the cost from the individual which at the very least instill a little responsibility and teach him (or her) to look after the kit that has been put on their charge.

You sound like the typical 'barrack room lawyer' who has decided that the system should never win, to the detriment of that system and that individuals have no responsibilities. It is that very attitude in my opinion that is why this chav filled country is going down hill so quickly.

I suppose if you buy something from a shop and lose it you would expect the shop to replace it free of charge.
Again, you have failed to make out your case!

Your principal argument is to bill the man to teach him to be more careful even in situations where he has displayed no lack of care. As an example to others perhaps that they may exercise care but still be deprived of their property for it!

You then launch into a diatribe to the effect that anyone who seeks to challenge that line of reasoning is devoid of responsibility and is responsible for the deline of the country!

You then use a shop analogy to suggest that a person who buys something from a shop expects the shop to replace it if the purchaser loses it?!

How can a purchaser possibly hold a shop responsible for a loss if the shop is not responsible for it and the individual has had his purchase stolen from him?

I think you can use a better argument than that!
 
#19
The_Cad said:
Firstly the QM cannot and should not bill anyone for the kit until an investigation takes place.

He has to write it off pending said investigation and use that write off as authority to demand a replacement.

Once the investigation has been completed and any culpability proven only then should bills be made.

Even if the individual was culpaple, was the item old? was it servicable at the time of theft? A good QM could quite legally reduce the cost to the soldier drastically. Only if he's being a cnut or if the soildier concerned is a cnut should the full value be recovered.

After all, if your 10 year old Astra is nicked. Do the insurance company pay for a new Astra to replace it? Do the F8ck. Same principle applies with kit.
Absolutely spot on!

I would only add that a good QM may well have items of surplus equipment which may have been found, handed in and may or may not have been taken on charge which has already been the subject of a signed AF P1954 (if they are still around these days) at the time of it's loss.
 
#20
So you are saying that the individual who has equipment put in their charge has no responsibility for that equipment, has no duty of care for that equipment and if anything happens to that equipment and he does not have it when asked for it, doesn't have to pay for any replacement? They can just shrug their shoulders and the tax payer can foot the bill?

Sounds more like a 'chavs charter' than a responsible application of the law. If that is what you do for a living you can have that happy warm feeling that you are partially responsible for the loss of standards in the British Army, and the erosion of self discipline and self respect, in what was once an institution that took men from all corners of society and taught them the right values and standards. Now it's chavs in civvy street stays a chav in uniform for the sole reason that people like you apply laws that are written to protect the weak in civilian society in order to protect the guilty.

It would be impolite to actually say what I think of you so I won't put it here. Besides, you'd probably try and have me in court and you can't for what you think I'm thinking, only for what I say.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top