Both my mum and I have been arrested on theft as we borrowed money out of my grandmothers account which she lets us look after. She has dementia but we knew she wouldn't have minded had she been aware (deemed NOT dishonest in S2 of the theft act of 1968). I'm in the UK BTW.

We've not been charged and have the money to pay back right away. The solicitor is dealing with the police to get the money paid back in it's entirety ASAP.

When questioned by police we were honest and said we intended to pay the money back, but had only just got back on our feet enough to be able to do it. Also we maintained the fact that we believed we would have had consent if my nan had known about it.

We are hoping they won't charge us if the money is paid right back right away. We were only borrowing from a family member - not stealing from a stranger.

You are right in one aspect of this. You were NOT stealing from a stranger.

You were stealing from a family member, a member with dementia.

Do you have a question? I'm not reading one.

If you do come up with a question it's more about the law and less about other money and services.

If you didn't have consent, you didn't borrow it you stole it. It doesn't matter that you intended to pay it back. That you used your grandmother's money without her approval. Since she has dementia there is no way to prove that she would have given consent.

She really needs a power of attorney.

You can borrow something without consent without it being theft, as long as you don't intend to permanently deprive them of it. Plus we believed we would have had consent and therefore were acting honestly in regards to S2 of the Theft act 1968.

Quote:

---

we believed we would have had consent

---

However, a person within their right mind (no dementia) can give consent. Since you did not have express and implied consent from a person in their right mind, you stole. It's as simple as that.

This is th paragraph regards dishonest in in Theft Act 1968:

(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

(b)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

(c)(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.

That's what I mean by we acted honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WorriedinUK

You can borrow something without consent without it being theft, as long as you don't intend to permanently deprive them of it. Plus we believed we would have had consent and therefore were acting honestly in regards to S2 of the Theft act 1968.

---

This makes no logical sense. If this was the case I'm going to go "borrow" a Ferrari but I'll return it eventually..

Do you have a link to this section?

Just read the theft act of 1968.

How were you able to 'borrow' from her account without forgery or other deceit?
How does one 'look after' a bank account without having bank documentation of right to withdraw funds?
I just don't see a grey area here.

Because when she wasn't too ill, she gave us her cards etc be custodian of, fetch her money , buy groceries and pay bills. She freely gave us access to the account. That was years ago and it's only been recently we borrowed.

1968 huh? I'm sure there is an updated law from the one here that is 42 or 43 years old.

Quote:

---

Comment on joypulv's post
Because when she wasn't too ill, she gave us her cards etc be custodian of, fetch her money , buy groceries and pay bills. She freely gave us access to the account. That was years ago and it's only been recently we borrowed.

---

But she didn't give you LEGAL permission. Through a solicitor. That is what is called Power of Attorney.

Were legal documents ever signed that you had access to all of her accounts? If not, you are screwed.

OK so I'm screwed. Can we close the question as I have enough answers

You are wondering if you will be charged even if you pay it all back. You might be, you might not. You can be. Without a clear picture of circumstances (which are eking out ever so slowly) it is impossible to have a clue. Have you and your mother been taking care of her all these years since she first gave you her cards, and have you been buying groceries and so on right up until the present? Who is, if not? Has social services stepped in? How did you get 'caught' if someone wasn't monitoring her account?

Believe it or not, you can't just quote law and think that all this doesn't matter.

We have been looking after her yes, all theses years and also giving money to care workers to buy groceries in the days we couldn't get there. Her level of care went up so the carers tended to care for her more than us. The money we gave to carers went missing often so we complained to social services and they looked into the bank accounts. We were monitoring her account and borrowed out of it when we hit hard times. We knew we would have had consent. Plus we have the money to pay it back as we are back on our feet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WorriedinUK

We knew we would have had consent.

---

But you didn't have LEGAL consent. Therein lies your problem.

Maybe if social services affirms that you asked them to look into missing funds...

I suppose there are still questions, such as how much did you borrow and when. You are free to not answer if you feel that this is too much. It's just opinion and we aren't even there. But you do need to drop the notion of 'knowing she would have consented' and also that being able to pay it back is enough to drop the charges.

I'm working on whether the OP asked a question and, if so, what it is/might be/could be or something in between.

And, yes, I am on my way to borrow a Ferrari.

I would read the CASE LAW and not the Act itself.