House clearance stash found

MrCarrot

kalaika wrote: »

I disagree. Why would you report him to the police when all he had done is cleared the house that you asked him to and took the assets contained within? Why would it be 'obvious' that cash isn't included in the clearance?

I can't see why you would have any claim over it, just because you didn't know it was there. Would you equally report him if he found an antique Ming vase worth millions, claiming it shouldn't have been part of the clearance and that it should belong to you?

My opinion is that this cash hasn't been 'found'. He has been paid to clear a house and the cash happened to be part of that job so I think he has a claim on it. If this cash had been randomly found, say, in the street then, yes, he should go to the police to report it and see if anyone claims it. But I think there is a difference.

I am almost certain that legally this is not the case. As someone else pointed out, cash is not an "object", therefore it would be obvious it wasn't part of the house clearance. Would a road sweeper be allowed to keep a roll of bank notes because he was given permission to sweep the streets and happened to find it in the gutter? Afterall, I'm sure nobody would object to him sweeping up an empty drinks can and keeping it, so why would money be any different?

I am guessing the OP provided a quote based on the size of the house and the contents inside. That quote wouldn't have been based on finding a hidden stash of money. Therefore this could be a case on unjust enrichment.

Would I keep the money? If it was say £100-£200 and I had very little or no hope of tracing the owner, then I probably would. If it was say £5k then I'd think differently. If the matter is not going to be reported to the police then I think there's little point worrying about paying tax on the money, since the law is probably being broken anyway.

kalaika

MrCarrot wrote: »

I am almost certain that legally this is not the case. As someone else pointed out, cash is not an "object", therefore it would be obvious it wasn't part of the house clearance. Would a road sweeper be allowed to keep a roll of bank notes because he was given permission to sweep the streets and happened to find it in the gutter? Afterall, I'm sure nobody would object to him sweeping up an empty drinks can and keeping it, so why would money be any different?

You are right that money is different to other objects, but it still has an owner, so I guess the question becomes one of whether it was 'sold' to the OP (all be it, by accident) as part of the house items or not.

I can't see why to see why it is 'obvious' that the money is not meant to be part of the house clearance. Yes, the relatives of the deceased did not know that it was in the house when it was cleared and if they had known they would have removed it before the OP was sent in. But isn't that the same if they knew of anything in the house that was worth a tidy sum? Surely the whole point of house clearance is that the OP would be employed to remove all remaining items once the relatives had taken the valuable stuff, but if he finds something that makes him a good profit then that's his good fortune.

The situation regarding a street sweeper is clearly a different situation and, as I mentioned earlier, if the cash had been found in the street then it should be passed to the police to see if it is reclaimed by it's actual owner. The problem in the situation we have here is that the OP was given carte blanche to clear a house of all its contents and this happened to be part of it.

kalaika

MrCarrot wrote: »

I am guessing the OP provided a quote based on the size of the house and the contents inside. That quote wouldn't have been based on finding a hidden stash of money. Therefore this could be a case on unjust enrichment.

You're probably correct that the quote that the OP gave to clear the house was based on the size and contents of the house (although he may want to correct us if we are wrong) but I doubt it is based on specific objects.

I expect it is more of a rough estimate (for example, I would have thought he would quote for, say, five rooms plus loft taking into account whether each of the rooms are full of large items of furniture, stuffed with piles of crap or relatively empty). If the quote was based on the specific contents of the house then the OP would need to review every item in the house to decide its value before quoting a price for its clearance, which is impractical.

The quote isn't based on finding a hidden stash of money, you are right. However, the quote wouldn't be based on finding a priceless antique or expensive jewellery either, but the OP would still keep these to sell, wouldn't he? I wouldn't see it as unjust enrichment if the OP makes a large profit by finding and selling any of these items (as that is how his business makes money). To me, discovering any of these would be just his good fortune and so I think it this should be applied to the money.

Errata

shaun1d wrote: »

Thank you for all of your comments.

The ownership of the money is not an issue, as it clearly states in our terms "all items cleared become the property of the company", in exactly the same way as if we, as earlier mentioned, found a valuable antique.

The OP seems not to understand the difference between 'items' - which are objects - and money, which is not an object. They cannot claim 'ownership' of any money unless they clearly state that they will.
Their local Trading Standards officer can explain the difference to them.

esmerelda98

Errata wrote: »

The OP seems not to understand the difference between 'items' - which are objects - and money, which is not an object. They cannot claim 'ownership' of any money unless they clearly state that they will.
Their local Trading Standards officer can explain the difference to them.

Having studied law (though I am not a lawyer), I can tell you that lawyers are masters of language and they would rip your argument to shreds in all of 2 seconds. Money equals notes and coins. Each note and each coin constitutes an item. Unless you can put forward a relevant statute or caselaw which shows that the judiciary do not take this viewpoint, I put it to you that you would have little success with that argument in a court of law.

Pumpkinface_2

esmerelda98 wrote: »

Having studied law (though I am not a lawyer), I can tell you that lawyers are masters of language and they would rip your argument to shreds in all of 2 seconds. Money equals notes and coins. Each note and each coin constitutes an item. Unless you can put forward a relevant statute or caselaw which shows that the judiciary do not take this viewpoint, I put it to you that you would have little success with that argument in a court of law.

Well as you say, you are not a lawyer. Neither am I, but I know that finders is not keepers. If I engage a house clearance company and indeed I did call some only a month ago with respect to my father's house, I would have been paying them to clear a house, i.e. to take unwanted items to an authorised tip. I can't believe some people are saying "why is it obvious" in respect of whether it was intended that cash was to be included in items to be disposed of. It is obvious because nobody "sells" £10,000 of cash for £150 an dnobody throws £10,000 of cash in the bin. I firmly believe the OP would lose if taken to court.

I have also just looked up a few house clearance company websites and most indicate that if they find anything valuable including cash they return it. I guess that is the kind of company people should choose to deal with, rather than the OP's for instance.

Errata

esmerelda98 wrote: »

Having studied law (though I am not a lawyer), I can tell you that lawyers are masters of language and they would rip your argument to shreds in all of 2 seconds. Money equals notes and coins. Each note and each coin constitutes an item. Unless you can put forward a relevant statute or caselaw which shows that the judiciary do not take this viewpoint, I put it to you that you would have little success with that argument in a court of law.

And the Judge would say "What would a reasonable person think ?"

MrCarrot

kalaika wrote: »

You are right that money is different to other objects, but it still has an owner, so I guess the question becomes one of whether it was 'sold' to the OP (all be it, by accident) as part of the house items or not.

I am not sure how you can sell something by accident?

kalaika wrote: »

However, the quote wouldn't be based on finding a priceless antique or expensive jewellery either, but the OP would still keep these to sell, wouldn't he?

If you sell something and underestimate its value, that's ignorance. Physically misplacing/losing money isn't.

Errata wrote: »

And the Judge would say "What would a reasonable person think ?"

Yes. And as you also pointed out the old saying, "Finders keepers" is never usually upheld by the law. As I mentioned in a previous thread, if the amount found was 2 million pounds does everyone really believe that someone who cleared a house for a hundred quid would get away with keeping the money?

stebiz

And the moral of the story.......................tell your loved ones, or mention in your will (or attached to it) if you have any hidden away loot.

Stebiz

Errata

It's not unusual for older people to stash notes in hidey holes and never mention it, or forget that they've done it.