Si1 Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Mirror Online: Mum arrives home to find landlord had hurled possessions - including tribute to dead baby - out of second floor window. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/callous-landlord-evicts-family-early-12170970 Not the loveliest benefits family out there, but can the landlord actually do this?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Apple Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 41? Mother of 9? Were all 9 in the flat?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, Cosmic Apple said: 41? Mother of 9? Were all 9 in the flat?! And £850 a month housing benefit I recall... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Apple Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Doesn't really outline the dates very well. Stuff thrown out on Friday, eviction carried out by sheriff on Wednesday... was that before or after the stuff was chucked? If its after then they should have moved their stuff. If they hadn't, then I'd assume the LL can, else they'd just be able to leave it all there indefinitely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disenfranchised Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) Ignore the fact the woman appears to have a revolving door installed in her nether regions and look at the big picture... Landlords can act like this only when: 1/ people who should be socially housed are in the private sector 2/ when protection for vulnerable tenants is too weak and the landlords don't fear legal outcomes for illegal actions such as the damage to possessions from throwing them out of windows 3/ when communities have been wrecked and don't stand up for their own. I've lived in parts of the country where the guys doing this would have needed a police escort out of the estate regardless of being a boxer or not the stabbing he claims to have feared would have been forthcoming in some parts of the world! Edited March 12, 2018 by disenfranchised Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, disenfranchised said: Ignore the fact the woman appears to have a revolving door installed in her nether regions and look at the big picture... Landlords can act like this only when: 1/ people who should be socially housed are in the private sector 2/ when protection for vulnerable tenants is too weak and the landlords don't fear legal outcomes for illegal actions 3/ when communities have been wrecked and don't stand up for their own. I've lived in parts of the country where the guys doing this would have needed a police escort out of the estate. I guess criminal damage is criminal damage whichever way you look at it, and littering, and complete disregard for a possible misunderstanding. But yes, if practically unenforceable then laws are a farce. This is just some more anti Tory votes. There really is no (longer) any such thing as society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disenfranchised Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 We should not have little scumbags like 'Dave Love' getting £850 a month out of our taxes to rent a former council house to a family in need of social housing. That's the beginning and end of the problem. It's not the kids fault their mum has never heard of birth control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parkwell Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 40 minutes ago, Cosmic Apple said: Doesn't really outline the dates very well. Stuff thrown out on Friday, eviction carried out by sheriff on Wednesday... was that before or after the stuff was chucked? If its after then they should have moved their stuff. If they hadn't, then I'd assume the LL can, else they'd just be able to leave it all there indefinitely? According to tenant - Wed: Sheriffs, landlord and tenant agree on eviction and have till Sunday to leave. Fri: Landlord chucks everything out the window. Regardless of the truth the landlord is a douche and criminally damaged all their possessions. And as disenfranchised rightly points out the whole system is a farce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RomfordDon Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Landlord is a knob. Hopefully police will charge him with criminal damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 50 minutes ago, RomfordDon said: Landlord is a knob. Hopefully police will charge him with criminal damage. Of course the police officer might themselves have the odd BTL... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houdini Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 29 minutes ago, Si1 said: Of course the police officer might themselves have the odd BTL... They may well but people like that landlord give the entire sector an even worse name. Downside is criminal damage isn't that great a crime so this is one of those times when I would be saying "are you sure those 50 gold sovereigns are no longer in that shoebox". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A third of everything Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 3 hours ago, Parkwell said: According to tenant - Wed: Sheriffs, landlord and tenant agree on eviction and have till Sunday to leave. Fri: Landlord chucks everything out the window. Regardless of the truth the landlord is a douche and criminally damaged all their possessions. And as disenfranchised rightly points out the whole system is a farce. Isn't it generally the done thing to go back for your stuff as you only get an hour when you're initiallty kicked out? They usually have to do so by appointment (according to countless episodes of can't pay we'll take it away) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adarmo Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Maybe give the benefit of the doubt and it's an article to scare landlords and further vilify them? If there was ever a piece of me that wanted to do any landlording the thought of dealing with worthless trash like this this on a daily basis would iron it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamoMucci Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) My understanding is that the landlord has to hold on to the possessions for six years or some significant period. Edited March 12, 2018 by AdamoMucci Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of Kent Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Leaving aside all the stuff about the tenant, I respectfully submit that the answer to the question is "never," or possibly "when they are on fire." A evicts B from her property and B's goods are left behind. A is a bailee and owes B a duty of care. If A's goods are damaged due to B's negligence or deliberate act then B can sue A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of Kent Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, AdamoMucci said: My understanding is that the landlord has to hold on to the possessions for six years or some significant period. Presumably on the basis that the limitation period for breach of contract is 6 years? The landlord can sell the goods having given notice under the Torts (Interference With Goods) Act 1977, but has to pay the tenant the proceeds less the costs of storage etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 8 minutes ago, Man of Kent said: Leaving aside all the stuff about the tenant, I respectfully submit that the answer to the question is "never," or possibly "when they are on fire." A evicts B from her property and B's goods are left behind. A is a bailee and owes B a duty of care. If A's goods are damaged due to B's negligence or deliberate act then B can sue A. In practical terms where does this leave a benefits mum with nine kids and no money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of Kent Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 On the blower to a no-win-no-fee solicitor, and idly leafing through holiday brochures. I'd say she should go to the Police but for most housing issues they are about as much use as a porcupine in a condom factory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamoMucci Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 31 minutes ago, Man of Kent said: Presumably on the basis that the limitation period for breach of contract is 6 years? The landlord can sell the goods having given notice under the Torts (Interference With Goods) Act 1977, but has to pay the tenant the proceeds less the costs of storage etc. I cannot remember why I think that but no way under normal circumstances is a landlord allowed to do that. He has got to store them. Unless in this specific situation they are allowed because of her situation. But I would be amazed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habeas Domus Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 It takes 3 months for a landlord to get possession notice then another 6 weeks for an eviction notice. I think it's likely the LL sent in writing something to the effect of "your possessions will be removed on or after the eviction date". Then during the actual eviction they said something different to get them out the door. The LL was charged by police, and then the charges dropped, presumably when the plod realised they had in fact given sufficient written notice. Still a crappy thing to do but not too surprising given that he is thousands out of pocket from unpaid rent + legal fees. The lesson: verbal assurances mean nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adarmo Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 hour ago, AdamoMucci said: I cannot remember why I think that but no way under normal circumstances is a landlord allowed to do that. He has got to store them. Unless in this specific situation they are allowed because of her situation. But I would be amazed. Statute of limitations is six years but that is not relevant to this case other than the tenant would have six years to make a claim against the landlord.... and vice versa. This is my absolute fave bit of UK law..... in this instance it would be that the landlord owes a reasonable duty of care and would have to store the possessions if it was a reasonable thing to do. The definition of reasonable being whatever a reasonable person deems reasonable to be. You have to love that? Now some more ranty.................................. Landlord is a douche (just look at the pics) but I probably am too busy to say that to his face. Former tenant (presumably she is still a tenant, just someone else's) is literally trash. No matter how much the property market returned to good value she is not someone who could exist in this way without a sucker for a state. She is not a victim of the poor situation in the housing market, she is the architect of her own position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 15 hours ago, disenfranchised said: We should not have little scumbags like 'Dave Love' getting £850 a month out of our taxes to rent a former council house to a family in need of social housing. That's the beginning and end of the problem. It's not the kids fault their mum has never heard of birth control. It is possible that she has heard of it, she just perfers having children to working. I agree with you although I would add people like this should not be given housing in places where there is a housing shortage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disenfranchised Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, iamnumerate said: It is possible that she has heard of it, she just perfers having children to working. I agree with you although I would add people like this should not be given housing in places where there is a housing shortage. Oh I quite agree. As a former and probably future London commuter few things boil my piss more than paying for layabouts to live in the towns and suburbs I am priced out of decent housing in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, disenfranchised said: Oh I quite agree. As a former and probably future London commuter few things boil my piss more than paying for layabouts to live in the towns and suburbs I am priced out of decent housing in. Sadly it is one of the many things that New Labour/Old Labour and the Tories agree on to some extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromage Frais Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) he/she cannot. I evicted someone who had left items in a commercial storage unit (not even living there) a squatter with potential adverse possession if left to fester. I was advised to video and log every item in a list and then securely store them and then make every effort to contact the owner. Then after x period of time and a paper trail showing how reasonable I was I would be able to dispose of the goods and then possibly flip it around and charge the owner of the goods for the hassle. Interference with goods act 197x Edited March 13, 2018 by Fromage Frais Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.