Picture posting is enabled for all :)
He ought to be evicted without question, if you've got the evidence to back up what you say.
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.
Quote from: lincsyokel2 on April 08, 2011, 10:17:47Look, 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.
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.
Quote from: Unwashed on April 08, 2011, 20:41:07Quote from: lincsyokel2 on April 08, 2011, 10:17:47Look, 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.
QuoteIt'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.
Quote from: lincsyokel2 on April 08, 2011, 20:53:23Quote from: Unwashed on April 08, 2011, 20:41:07Quote from: lincsyokel2 on April 08, 2011, 10:17:47Look, 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.
QuoteIf 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.
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.
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.
There is no such thing as a principle of adverse posession.
our tenancy agreement states that anything left on the plot ( at end of tenancy) becomes the property of the association, simples
Quote from: tonybloke on April 08, 2011, 23:16:49our tenancy agreement states that anything left on the plot ( at end of tenancy) becomes the property of the association, simplesWho 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.