property taken by tenant on leaving

GDB2222

Trebor01 wrote: »

Inkz - I think the point here is that the LL appears to be out of pocket, as he/she paid for a 'bed' and now just has a bedframe, which without the mattress is useless and he/she would either need to buy a new mattress (money !!!) or pack away a bedframe he/she paid for but has no use for.

No, it looks as though the LL contributed towards a new bed. The tenants paid for the mattress themselves, so they think they have the right to take it with them. It all depends on exactly what was said at the time, and there are bound to be two sides to that.

casper_g

Trebor01 wrote: »

Seems to me some of the replies are worth ignoring. If the tenant has a receipt this only shows he/she bought a mattress. If the tenancy agreement says she will leave this behind at the end of the tenancy and he/she has signed this, and then taken it, it's theft. The contract shows that after the tenancy finishes the property i.e. the mattress now belongs to the landlord, so this is not betterment it is and agreed part of a contract.

So this is theft. The definition of the term "bed" under the oxford english dictionary is quite clear so again comments posted stating otherwise just display ignorance of the english language, and a judge would follow the dictionary definition.

The definition of "bed" is all very interesting, but it's the definition of "theft" that is most problematic in this case (IMHO, IANAL etc). At best, it could be said that the tenant owned a mattress (they had purchased it) and had contracted to transfer ownership of the mattress to the landlord when the tenancy ended. Failing to fulfil a contractual obligation to do something is not the same as stealing something though. I don't believe it is theft.

The best hope the landlord would have in this case, in my view, would be to sue the ex-tenant in the civil courts for not giving him the mattress. Since the contract that he is trying to enforce is not well drawn up and is highly open to interpretation re. the definition of a bed, the court is likely to side with the tenant. The landlord, as a business and as the entity having the contract drawn up, should have been in a better position to obtain legal advice and ensure their interests were protected.

Trebor01

I think you are missing the point. The tenant quite clearly knows the 'bed' should be left behind as this was agreed from the outset, so taking the mattress is dis-honest hence theft. If the tenant does not understand english, that is going to be their problem if pursued by the LL. Again I would point to the inventory, which again appears to have been signed according to the threads. The tenant was happy to sign when the mattress and bed frame were identified as separate items, so in signing the tenancy clause for the 'bed' to be left behind, they should have been more careful and asked for them to be separated if they intended to take the mattress. As it stands the definition of the word bed means a sum of its parts. Clearly and to make this simple, you would not buy a fridge without a door, you would expect the item to come complete, but each part can be purchased separately, a fridge is a fridge, and a bed is a bed, no ifs buts or maybes its a fact, and to find your fridge door missing would be theft, in much the same way as in this case a mattress has been taken. The fridge is useless without the door, and the bed frame is useless without the mattress.....!!

GDB2222

I am obviously dishonest, by your definition Trebor, because I disagree with you. This case is obviously one where there is an honest dispute about what the agreement was.

angrypirate

1. How much did the LL contribute?
2. How much did the tenant contribute?
3. How much did the frame cost?
4. How much did the mattress cost?
If 2 is greater than or equal to 4, then I dont see an issue in what the tenant has done.

tyler80

If the inventory said bed plus mattress and the contract said bed why would the assumption be that bed in the contract meant bed plus mattress?

Trebor01

I fail to understand your logic GDB2222, I have never said that just because someone disagrees with another that makes them "dishonest", that clearly does not make any sense. The fact is that when someone openly takes something not belonging to them, this IS theft and IS dishonest, and this is quite clearly what has happened. The T signed the inventory and they signed the tenancy clause and as a result clearly know the difference between the term "bed", "bedframe" and "mattress" so now claiming ignorance on this matter is a bit late in the day. A signature is often all it takes.....!

Trebor01

Tyler - I think you have missed the point, I think the inventory said bed frame plus mattress.....!!

Trebor01

Angry Pirate - the point here is that the contract stated the landlord would have both at the end of the tenancy, i.e. "bed", not either the bed frame or mattress. I believe from earlier points in the thread that the LL had no obligation to provide anything but simply agreed to pay towards the "bed" as the T wanted an additional "bed". In doing so he/she helped T with their own needs during the tenancy and the agreement would ultimately mean the LL would have another bed at the end of the tenancy. Before anyone suggests this again, this would not be betterment as the LL and T specified this in the tenancy clause, I assume from the LL's perspective to protect him/herself against this issue.

JQ.

Trebor01 wrote: »

Tyler - I think you have missed the point, I think the inventory said bed frame plus mattress.....!!

Perhaps you could highlight the post where the OP states such.

I think your rage is clouding your judgement.