Topic: Advice, please

[roxy]

That would be the ideal solution as far as I'm concerned.  ;D Unfortunately it doesn't specify in our contracts that you have to remove your stuff within a certain period of time (but I think they are now going to add a clause) and I know he'll argue the point. However, he is trespassing on my allotment. I was at the allotment the other day and he hasn't taken any more flags. Hopefully that will be it now otherwise I'm going to have to go round his house and have it out with him!

He ought to be evicted without question, if you've got the evidence to back up what you say.

[lincsyokel2]

Look, theres a simple principle in law.

When you are tenant on property, you have a right to enjoy use of that rented property without hindrance or trespass. Thats why the landlord  cant enter you're house without giving you 30 days notice.

His trespass on your rented land amounts to interference in you right to enjoy your land. His removal of your property is theft, and since he has removed items, you have sustained actual damages, which in principle you can recover for in  a civil court, not to mention the criminal act of theft.

You have an absolute right here.

[picman]

Roxy. I understand the perhaps delicate position you may feel you are in being newish to the site but I really think you should press your committee secretary to at least warn him about his illegal behavior, there is not any need to specify a time to "remove his stuff" , the day the tenancy ends thats it, as the new tenant you may decide to give a short grace period but thats your prerogative.  As I said before don't get personally involved , make the committee do their job. He should not be allowed to get away with it.
 

[Trevor_D]

Roxy, it's not your problem and you can't take the law into your own hands.

That's what the committee is there for! Someone has to deal with the messy bits and that's why they were elected. Leave it to them and stay out of it!

[Unwashed]

Look, theres a simple principle in law.

When you are tenant on property, you have a right to enjoy use of that rented property without hindrance or trespass. Thats why the landlord  cant enter you're house without giving you 30 days notice.

His trespass on your rented land amounts to interference in you right to enjoy your land. His removal of your property is theft, and since he has removed items, you have sustained actual damages, which in principle you can recover for in  a civil court, not to mention the criminal act of theft.

You have an absolute right here.

Your right to the peaceful enjoyment of your property is against the landlord, not a third party and simple trespass isn't actionable.

It's not altogether easy to say who has the better title to the flags, the tenant, the neighbour, or the landlord.

The flags could very well belong to the neighbour.  When a tenant leaves stuff behind when they vacate rented property the stuff still belongs to them unless they've abandoned it, and there has to be pretty clear evidence of abandonment and the fact that it was left behind isn't enough.  As the previous tenant continued to be the tenant of a neighbouring plot gives a very good indication that the flags were not in fact abandoned.

If the old tenant had left the flags in a pile there'd be no question - even after 18 months they'd still belong to the old tenant.  However, the flags were laid, and that changes things.  They're in intimate contact with the ground and that makes them part of the plot itself, and the tenant's right is limited to the exclusive occupation and enjoyment of the plot, the tenant never has the right to carry away the fabric of the plot.  So it's the landlord who owns the flags, though the current tenant has an eclusive right to use them.

If the previous tenant laid the flags then technically that's called waste - I know it's actually improving the plot, but it's not the tenant's plot to improve because the landlord has the right to get the plot back in the same condition as at the start of the lease - no worse, no better (other than cultivation, but that's another story).  So the landlord would have been within her rights to insist the previous tenant remove the flags when he vacated, but in fact the landlord consented to the waste.

So my unqualified and potentially completely and utterly wrong suggestion is that the flags don't belong to the old tenant, they belong to the landlord, and the current tenant has the right against the landlord to their exclusive enjoyment.

Roxy, complain to the landlord.  You rented the plot with flagstones and someone has taken those flagstones away so you need to tell the landlord what's happened to her property and insist that you get some replacements laid.

[lincsyokel2]

Look, theres a simple principle in law.

When you are tenant on property, you have a right to enjoy use of that rented property without hindrance or trespass. Thats why the landlord  cant enter you're house without giving you 30 days notice.

His trespass on your rented land amounts to interference in you right to enjoy your land. His removal of your property is theft, and since he has removed items, you have sustained actual damages, which in principle you can recover for in  a civil court, not to mention the criminal act of theft.

You have an absolute right here.

Your right to the peaceful enjoyment of your property is against the landlord, not a third party and simple trespass isn't actionable.

Yes it is, because he has sustained actual damages, ie the theft of his property. Thats why breaking and entering is a crime, but Squatting isnt, if you dont break in.

It's not altogether easy to say who has the better title to the flags, the tenant, the neighbour, or the landlord.

The flags could very well belong to the neighbour.  When a tenant leaves stuff behind when they vacate rented property the stuff still belongs to them unless they've abandoned it, and there has to be pretty clear evidence of abandonment and the fact that it was left behind isn't enough.  As the previous tenant continued to be the tenant of a neighbouring plot gives a very good indication that the flags were not in fact abandoned.

I disagree. The old tenant is under an obligation to clear the plot, assuming they tenancy agreement is the same as most allotment agreements. In my agreement the previous tenant loses title to anything left on the plot after one month.

If the old tenant had left the flags in a pile there'd be no question - even after 18 months they'd still belong to the old tenant.  However, the flags were laid, and that changes things.  They're in intimate contact with the ground and that makes them part of the plot itself, and the tenant's right is limited to the exclusive occupation and enjoyment of the plot, the tenant never has the right to carry away the fabric of the plot.  So it's the landlord who owns the flags, though the current tenant has an eclusive right to use them.

I would have thought anything removable was goods and chattels, not part of the substance of the plot. I agree they probably might revert to the landlord, but then arguably title seems to pass to the new tenant.

If the previous tenant laid the flags then technically that's called waste - I know it's actually improving the plot, but it's not the tenant's plot to improve because the landlord has the right to get the plot back in the same condition as at the start of the lease - no worse, no better (other than cultivation, but that's another story).  So the landlord would have been within her rights to insist the previous tenant remove the flags when he vacated, but in fact the landlord consented to the waste.

I agree

So my unqualified and potentially completely and utterly wrong suggestion is that the flags don't belong to the old tenant, they belong to the landlord, and the current tenant has the right against the landlord to their exclusive enjoyment.

Roxy, complain to the landlord.  You rented the plot with flagstones and someone has taken those flagstones away so you need to tell the landlord what's happened to her property and insist that you get some replacements laid.

I think thats possibly the first step, and then if that doesnt solve it your only other option is the police.

[Unwashed]

Roxy. I understand the perhaps delicate position you may feel you are in being newish to the site but I really think you should press your committee secretary to at least warn him about his illegal behavior, there is not any need to specify a time to "remove his stuff" , the day the tenancy ends thats it, as the new tenant you may decide to give a short grace period but thats your prerogative.  As I said before don't get personally involved , make the committee do their job. He should not be allowed to get away with it.
 

I don't think this is relevent here, but I'd like to mention about stuff an old tenant leaves behind.  Unless it's clearly and demonstrably abandoned then it still belongs to the old tenant, and just because it was left behind is not enough to prove it was abandoned.

So when the landlord or new tenant discovers the old tenant's property they have an obligation to find the tenant and get the stuff taken away, and while you're looking for the tenant and waiting for the stuff to be collected you have a duty to keep it safe.  If you dispose of the old tenant's stuff without making a good enough effort to contact them or giving them a reasonable time to tak etheir stuff away you can be sued for damages.

I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure that a clause in the tenancy agreement that deems stuff left behind to have been abandoned is not enforceable.

After you've made a decent effort to contact the old tenant and given them reasonable notice to collect their stuff you're entitled to sell the stuff and be reimbursed for your costs, but you have to keep any money left over safe and make an effort to get it to the tenant, and you have a duty to get the best price for the stuff, and if you don't the old tenant can turn up years later and sue you for the loss.

Again, it's just my unqualified opinion and you'd be daft to act on advice from a bloke on the internet who you've never met and has just done a bit of googling, but I hope it gives you somewhere to start your own enquires.

[Unwashed]

Look, theres a simple principle in law.

When you are tenant on property, you have a right to enjoy use of that rented property without hindrance or trespass. Thats why the landlord  cant enter you're house without giving you 30 days notice.

His trespass on your rented land amounts to interference in you right to enjoy your land. His removal of your property is theft, and since he has removed items, you have sustained actual damages, which in principle you can recover for in  a civil court, not to mention the criminal act of theft.

You have an absolute right here.

Your right to the peaceful enjoyment of your property is against the landlord, not a third party and simple trespass isn't actionable.

Yes it is, because he has sustained actual damages, ie the theft of his property. Thats why breaking and entering is a crime, but Squatting isnt, if you dont bre ak in.

Simple trespass is not actionable.  If the trespass causes damage then you can sue for damages, but it's a civil matter and has nothing to do with breaking and entering.  If a trespasser stole stuff and you wanted to take out a civil action you'd sue for conversion, not trespass.  Breaking and entering is a crime because S.9 of the Theft Act 1968 makes it a criminal offence, but it only applies to buildings, not land.

Squatting isn't a crime because trespass isn't a criminal offence.

[Unwashed]

It's not altogether easy to say who has the better title to the flags, the tenant, the neighbour, or the landlord.

The flags could very well belong to the neighbour.  When a tenant leaves stuff behind when they vacate rented property the stuff still belongs to them unless they've abandoned it, and there has to be pretty clear evidence of abandonment and the fact that it was left behind isn't enough.  As the previous tenant continued to be the tenant of a neighbouring plot gives a very good indication that the flags were not in fact abandoned.

I disagree. The old tenant is under an obligation to clear the plot, assuming they tenancy agreement is the same as most allotment agreements. In my agreement the previous tenant loses title to anything left on the plot after one month.

I'll see your disagree and raise you a Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

[lincsyokel2]

Look, theres a simple principle in law.

When you are tenant on property, you have a right to enjoy use of that rented property without hindrance or trespass. Thats why the landlord  cant enter you're house without giving you 30 days notice.

His trespass on your rented land amounts to interference in you right to enjoy your land. His removal of your property is theft, and since he has removed items, you have sustained actual damages, which in principle you can recover for in  a civil court, not to mention the criminal act of theft.

You have an absolute right here.

Your right to the peaceful enjoyment of your property is against the landlord, not a third party and simple trespass isn't actionable.

Yes it is, because he has sustained actual damages, ie the theft of his property. Thats why breaking and entering is a crime, but Squatting isnt, if you dont bre ak in.

Simple trespass is not actionable.  If the trespass causes damage then you can sue for damages, but it's a civil matter and has nothing to do with breaking and entering.  If a trespasser stole stuff and you wanted to take out a civil action you'd sue for conversion, not trespass.  Breaking and entering is a crime because S.9 of the Theft Act 1968 makes it a criminal offence, but it only applies to buildings, not land.

Squatting isn't a crime because trespass isn't a criminal offence.

Squatting isnt a crime because the principle of Adverse Possession is built into common law and you cant cancel a Common Law right with a Parliamentary Statute......see Thoburn vs Sunderland City Council 2000 and the ruling of Laws L J...........and thats because Common Law Rights are established by Settlement Treaties, which are above Parliament.

[Unwashed]

If the old tenant had left the flags in a pile there'd be no question - even after 18 months they'd still belong to the old tenant.  However, the flags were laid, and that changes things.  They're in intimate contact with the ground and that makes them part of the plot itself, and the tenant's right is limited to the exclusive occupation and enjoyment of the plot, the tenant never has the right to carry away the fabric of the plot.  So it's the landlord who owns the flags, though the current tenant has an eclusive right to use them.

I would have thought anything removable was goods and chattels, not part of the substance of the plot. I agree they probably might revert to the landlord, but then arguably title seems to pass to the new tenant.

And it turns on this.  Are laid flags movable property or not.  I say not, but I wouldn't like to bet on it.  Perhaps someone can shed light on this?

[picman]

Read all that opinion , but this , if i'm not mistaken happened 18 months after leaving the plot...  cannot be right. come on committee don't be mice.

[Unwashed]

Squatting isnt a crime because the principle of Adverse Possession is built into common law and you cant cancel a Common Law right with a Parliamentary Statute......see Thoburn vs Sunderland City Council 2000 and the ruling of Laws L J...........and thats because Common Law Rights are established by Settlement Treaties, which are above Parliament.

No, squatting isn't a crime because it isn't a crime.  Crimes are crimes because legislation makes them so, and if there isn't legislation that makes a thing a criminal offence then it isn't.

Thoburn vs Sunderland City Council dealt with the legitimacy of secondary legislation repealing primary legislation by implication.

Of course legislation can, and frequently does, override the common law.

There is no such thing as a principle of adverse posession.  

This is now going seriously off-topic so you might want to create a new thread in The Shed if you want to carry on.

[Unwashed]

Read all that opinion , but this , if i'm not mistaken happened 18 months after leaving the plot...  cannot be right. come on committee don't be mice.

If it turns out that the flags are movable property then they belong to the old tenant and there is no time limit.  It's up to the committee to do something, but it needs to be careful because it's by no means certain that the old tenant has done anything wrong.

[lincsyokel2]

There is no such thing as a principle of adverse posession.  

 'Friad there is....................

At common law where entitlement to possession of land was in dispute (originally only in what were known as real actions) the person claiming a right to possession could not allege that the land had come into their possession in the past (in older terminology that they had been "put into seisin") at a time before the reign of Henry I. There was thus a cut off date going back into the past before which the law would not be interested.


In England and Wales, adverse possession has been governed by the Limitation Act 1980, the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Land Registration Act 2002. Different rules are in place for the limitation periods of adverse possession in unregistered land and registered land.

For unregistered land, the Limitation Act of 1980 states that a squatter must remain in adverse possession for 12 years, at which point the paper owner's title to the land is extinguished.

For registered land, adverse possession claims completed before 13 October 2003 (the date the 2002 Act came into force) are governed by section 75(1) and 75(2) of the Land Registration Act of 1925. The limitation period remains the same (12 years) but instead of the original owner's title to the land being extinguished, the original owner holds the land on trust for the adverse possessor. The adverse possessor can then apply to be the new registered proprietor of the land.

The position of a registered landowner was significantly improved by the Land Registration Act of 2002. Where land is registered, the adverse possessor may apply to be registered as owner after 10 years of adverse possession and the Land Registry must give notice to the true owner of this application. This gives the landowner a statutory period of time [65 business days] to object to the adverse possession, and if they do so the application fails. Otherwise, the squatter becomes the registered properietor according to the land registry. If the true owner is unable to evict the squatter in the two years following the first application, the squatter can apply again after this period and be successful despite the opposition of the owner. The process effectively prevents the removal of a landowner's right to property without his knowledge, while ensuring squatters have a fair way exercising their rights.

Where a tenant adversely possesses land, there is a presumption that he is doing so in a way that will benefit his landlord at the end of his term. If the land does not belong to his landlord, the land will become part of both the tenancy and the reversion. If the land does belong to his landlord, it would seem that it will be gained by the tenant but only for the period of his term.

[tonybloke]

our tenancy agreement states that anything left on the plot ( at end of tenancy) becomes the property of the association, simples

[lincsyokel2]

our tenancy agreement states that anything left on the plot ( at end of tenancy) becomes the property of the association, simples

Who must then either grant you use, or grant you title, to those goods. Either way, the original tenant has no title to the goods, and there removal is theft.

[tonybloke]

our tenancy agreement states that anything left on the plot ( at end of tenancy) becomes the property of the association, simples

Who must then either grant you use, or grant you title, to those goods. Either way, the original tenant has no title to the goods, and there removal is theft.

I agree !!

[Unwashed]

our tenancy agreement states that anything left on the plot ( at end of tenancy) becomes the property of the association, simples

I don't believe you can make such a rule.  The legal position is that stuff left behind remains the property of the out-going tenant unless there is clear evidence that it has been abandoned, and the fact that it is left behind is not sufficient evidence.  Making a rule that says otherwise means nothing.

What you can probably do is make a rule that says 30 days after the tenant vacates you'll dispose of anything left on the plot and give the proceeds to the tenant less reasonable necessary expenses.  I would say that gives the tenant the required notice and doesn't go beyond what the law allows.

[picman]

It all seems to hang on interpretation of " removable property" , you could say practically everything on an allotment plot is removable property, Shed , raised bed planks, compost in those beds, fruit trees / bushes , posts , water butts, plant pots, bird scares, bricks and the problem slabs.
Now it is suggested we have to put all abandoned stuff to one side in case a tenant from 1960 comes looking for it....  Wonder what Judge Judy would say......

I am going to propose a change to our rules as per tonybloke's 30 day rule in his last comment. ( probably a 30 Hour rule... ;)