PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

LL Threatening to 'remove and destroy' vehicles.

Options
13»

Comments

  • teneighty
    teneighty Posts: 1,347 Forumite
    Options
    Comms69 wrote: »
    Your belief is totally wrong.


    So you should just edit your post.

    Nope I think I'll leave it. The landlord in question was a local authority, they have the power to remove abandoned vehicles. This power extends to vehicles abandoned on private land so potentially the land owner can ask the local authority to remove them or the local authority can take action themselves.

    The point I was trying to make is the vehicle must be deemed to be abandoned. You can't just take someones car because they parked on your drive for 5 minutes. I'm guessing that is why the landlord in OP's case has targeted untaxed/uninsured vehicles.
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    teneighty wrote: »
    Nope I think I'll leave it. The landlord in question was a local authority, they have the power to remove abandoned vehicles. This power extends to vehicles abandoned on private land so potentially the land owner can ask the local authority to remove them or the local authority can take action themselves.

    The point I was trying to make is the vehicle must be deemed to be abandoned. You can't just take someones car because they parked on your drive for 5 minutes. I'm guessing that is why the landlord in OP's case has targeted untaxed/uninsured vehicles.
    ... convenient......
  • bowlhead99
    bowlhead99 Posts: 12,295 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Post of the Month
    Options
    Comms69 wrote: »
    ... convenient......

    Hehe inconvenient for you after you said he was totally wrong without considering that in certain circumstances (and not necessarily the ones which OP's friend faces) be might feasibly be right.. :)

    The MSE boards are often a fun reminder that internet discussion forums can play host to an entertaining set of views, anecdotes and personalities.
  • Norman_Castle
    Norman_Castle Posts: 11,871 Forumite
    Photogenic First Post Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Options
    teneighty wrote: »
    I believe that by giving written notice the landlord can legally assume the vehicle has been abandoned if not removed by the owner
    If the owner contacts the landlord and explains the vehicles are not abandoned then the landlord cannot assume that they are.
  • Cakeguts
    Cakeguts Posts: 7,627 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    I think I would start from here. One vehicle means one vehicle it doesn't mean one vehicle plus a caravan so whoever is parking a car and a caravan is already breaking their lease. Who owns the land on which these one vehicle per household are parked and are there really only one vehicle per household? Why would anyone hang onto a non taxed vehicle if that is the only one they have?

    The fact that people have been using this land to park multiple vehicles on doesn't mean that it will be allowed to go on forever.
  • Mossfarr
    Mossfarr Posts: 530 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker Hung up my suit!
    Options
    Comms69 wrote: »
    DVLA and Council (and court orders)


    Police can seize vehicles, but not order scrappage


    Of course they can - have you never heard of cars being seized for having no insurance being sent to the crusher? That scheme has been in operation for over 10 years! Having said that, as far as I know it applies to vehicles on public roads not private land:D:D
  • Cakeguts
    Cakeguts Posts: 7,627 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Mossfarr wrote: »
    [/COLOR]

    Of course they can - have you never heard of cars being seized for having no insurance being sent to the crusher? That scheme has been in operation for over 10 years! Having said that, as far as I know it applies to vehicles on public roads not private land:D:D

    I don't think we know who owns the land in this case do we? The person who parks a car and a caravan on the verge sounds as if he doing it on the public road?
  • G_M
    G_M Posts: 51,977 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    It does not seem to have been establised if this is

    a) a matter of trespass (ie a civil matter) - vehicles left on private land without the landlord's consent, or

    b) a matter of vehicle licencing /insurance (ie criminal) - vehicles left on private land both untaxed and not 'SORN'ed, or left on the public highway untaxed and uninsured.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.9K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.2K Life & Family
  • 248.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards