property taken by tenant on leaving

pinkshoes

honey06 wrote: »

hi all and thanks for the replies.
the main item in question is a mattress. it isnt in question that the tenant took this on moving out, just a question of ownership;-

my friend agreed to provide money towards the cost of a new bed (even though it was only let part furnished) and it was written into the tenancy agreement that a new bed would be purchased, how much he would contribute, and that this would be left as his at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is taking the view that he purchased the frame, they bought the mattress and so it is theirs...

regardless of who bought which bit, or how much overall the bed cost, the tenancy agreement says a BED- it doesnt specify frames/mattresses.

What does it say on the inventory signed by the tenant?

A "BED" is the underneath bit. A mattress is the bit on top. So if it only states "BED", and the tenant also contributed towards this, then I would say that they are entitled to take the mattress.

Why on earth did your friend get the tenant to contribute? Surely that was asking for trouble?!?

JQ.

Thanks for the update.

So you're proposing to report the tenant to the police for taking a mattress which they paid for and presumably have a receipt for. Why does you friend think they are entitled to something belonging to the tenant? Personally, I would consider a bed to be the frame and a mattress to be a mattress, it's all semantics. Your friend should have been clearer in the terms of the contract if they wanted the mattress.

The last 3 beds we've bought, we've bought the mattresses completely seperately from the frames, so from my point of view I consider them seperate items - I imagine other people may have a different opinion. I certainly wouldn't be calling the police.

GDB2222

It's laughable to suggest that this is criminal, and the Police won't be interested.

honey06

hi pinkshoes,

the tenancy agreement was drawn up with the word "bed"

according the oxford english dictionary, a bed is
a. A permanent structure or arrangement for sleeping on, or for the sake of rest. It consists for the most part of a sack or mattress of sufficient size, stuffed with something soft or springy, raised generally upon a ‘bed-stead’ or support, and covered with sheets, blankets, etc., for the purpose of warmth. The name is given both to the whole structure in its most elaborate form, and, as in ‘feather-bed,’ to the stuffed sack or mattress which constitutes its essential part. (A person is said to be in bed, when undressed and covered with the bedclothes.)

ie the mattress is part of the bed not separate to it. not sure how anyone could sleep on just a frame or underneath bit??? :rotfl:
so they are NOT entitled to take it.

despite the property being rented part furnished, the tenant wanted my friend to buy a bed for one of the bedrooms.
My friend had no need or desire to spend money on buying a bed at that point (especially one he didnt even chose) nor should he have had to- so the compromise was agreed on and written into the tenancy agreement as follows;-
that a bed would be purchased, with my friend contributing X amount towards the purchase costs, anything over that amount would be contributed by the tenant and at the end of the tenancy the bed would be left in the property as the property of the landlord

JQ- my friend considers it his property due the paragraph above which is part of the signed tenancy agreement.
the terms certainly seem clear enough. it is the tenant who has decided they are going to keep the matttress regardless of this agreement :cool:

and my friend didnt particularly want either the frame or mattress- he has his own bed stored elsewhere! he was trying to be accomodating/helpful towards the tenant- but given that they made an agreement and the bed is his, the tenant shouldnt just be allowed to take it

PasturesNew

My considered opinion is: !!!!!! it's a bl00dy mattress. Go and buy a new one, it'll make renting it out easier when the LL can say it's a new mattress anyway.

I can't believe somebody's got so p155y over a mattress.

If it's that much of an issue, it can come out of the deposit, see what the deposit people make of it.

Brb

I would leave this one to the adjudication service of the deposit protection scheme that holds/insures it.

My personal opinion is that LL is attempting to gain betterment out of the T and will therefore fail if T produces receipt for mattress. If a mattress that T paid for was left at the property then the LL is gaining x years' betterment at T's cost. My reasons for coming to this conclusion is because if LL bought a complete bedset and T ripped mattress then LL would only be entitled to replacement less wear and tear. IE: actual losses of years of use of item. As LL did not pay for item they have no loss, neither did LL provide the mattress.

Soot2006

If I was the T I think I would be tempted to get a free lumpy mattress off Freecycle and donate it to the LL. Job done.

What a strange situation.

Why on earth did your friend just say "no" when asked for a bed? I have asked LLs for stuff before and they've sometimes said YES and the item belonged to them, and sometimes NO in which case I bought the item and it belonged to me.

Adding to this as I am irate for no reason today. What if the mattress was soiled? What if it stank of wee? Would LL then be seeking damages as well for a mattress he never purchased? He still had the bed frame that he purchased. So sell it!

honey06

thanks

pasturesnew-i did say in my initial post that my friend is doing just that and has referred it to the deposit people
I happen to think its quite serious to take someone elses property, hence my original question (as I know such disputes can take a while to resolve)
in this case it was a considerable sum of money to my friend at the outset of this tenancy and why shoud he have to spend even more money to buy another mattress for it? it may be a lesson learned for the future not to be so accomodating or supportive towards tenants but that doesnt resolve this case.
so, yes on the one hand it may just be a bed. on the other, surely it isnt morally or legally right regardless of the amount in question???

Brb- interesting point to consider. the mattress was taken by the tenant when they left and was less than 6 months old when taken (only a short tenancy ) so not sure how much wear & tear would be applied???
the landlord has suffered a loss as he contributed to the cost on the basis that the bed would be left as his at the end of the tenancy and it wasnt.
its me that thinks its disgraceful and wondered about the police!!!

Soot 2006- i suspect the tenant bought an expensive mattress and thats why they took it

poppysarah

So it's not on the inventory?
The tenant has a reciept for it?

Sorted.

Buy a new mattress or take the bed frame away.

Soot2006

So they bought a £500 mattress ... paid for it ... used it for 6 months ... then took it to their new home?

What if it was covered in pee and vomit and soup and swine flu? Would LL want it, then ... Would they expect damages to be paid for THEIR soiled mattress that they've never even seen and don't have a receipt for?

I would be gobsmacked if the semantic argument of the word "bed" entitles the LL to consider this £500 mattress his property! It's not disgraceful ... it's normal! Now if they'd taken the "bed", THEN it would be theft. But you can't steal your own property.