Can l be arrested for this?

Yorkie1

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I'm not confusing anything - I have applied the right to set off probably hundreds of times in my past without any prior legal action. Banks do it all the time - e.g. person owes £300 on their credit card but have the same amount of money sitting in a savings account. Bank whips money out of savings account to clear credit card. Are you seriously suggesting that
a) They have 'stolen' the money from the savings account and
b) The bank should go through a legal process before applying the right to set off.

That's a completely different example. The bank's T&Cs will allow set-off from one account against another, therefore the customer has signed a contract agreeing to this when they opened the accounts.

daisymay2008

antrobus wrote: »

Mmmm. You don't really understand how the criminal justice system works do you?

another example of your arrogance

Oh that's wrong on so many levels.

a) B has no such legal entitlement
b) Whether or not he honestly believed he was owed the money is not a defence to a charge of theft

I completely disagree, again i re-iterate it is for a jury to decide if i acted dishonestly if they don't then i get acquitted






It is no defence for a man to say "I knew that what I was doing is generally regarded as dishonest; but I do not regard it as dishonest myself. Therefore I am not guilty". (See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1982/2.html)

but don't think i would be acting dishonestly

So what you think doesn't matter again with the arrogance

It only matters what a jury think and I doubt the OP would even get that far for all the reasons previously outlined, lets wait and see what happens when the ex finds out;)

regprentice

Yorkie1 wrote: »

That's a completely different example. The bank's T&Cs will allow set-off from one account against another, therefore the customer has signed a contract agreeing to this when they opened the accounts.

Absolutely - in fact only banks and hmrc have 'automatic' right of set off, and the ombudsman has found against banks where they have applied 'onerous' terms or insufficient notice.

No one else may apply set off without contractual right to do so.

As there does not appear to be a contract in this case, there is no contractual right. Additionally where the right exists 'reasonable' notice must be given to exercise this right. I seriously doubt you could call a weeks notice given to an individiual you KNOW to be out of the country to be 'reasonable'.

geoffky

daisymay2008....you clearly are out of your depth here and your points are so wrong in law...give it up...it is theft..

and it looks like the op has customised the situation to suit what has happened and not what was happening..

Hanky_Panky

regprentice wrote: »

Absolutely - in fact only banks and hmrc have 'automatic' right of set off, and the ombudsman has found against banks where they have applied 'onerous' terms or insufficient notice.

No one else may apply set off without contractual right to do so.

As there does not appear to be a contract in this case, there is no contractual right. Additionally where the right exists 'reasonable' notice must be given to exercise this right. I seriously doubt you could call a weeks notice given to an individiual you KNOW to be out of the country to be 'reasonable'.

Complete nonsense - please google right of set off and see what comes back.

Everyone has a common law right to set off.

Edit - have a look at this link: http://www.key2law.co.uk/articles/pdfs/setoff.pdf

regprentice

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

Complete nonsense - please google right of set off and see what comes back.

Everyone has a common law right to set off.

Edit - have a look at this link: http://www.key2law.co.uk/articles/pdfs/setoff.pdf

The article quotes is written specifically for 'receivables financiers' - every example given assumes a contract between two parties - as stated No one else may apply set off without contractual right to do so.

The argument being made several times in this thread appears to be that an individual has an automatic right to seize and liquidate assets belonging to someone they believe that owes them money without referring to the police or the courts first. This is completely and utterly false.

The 'common law right of set off' is described as follows '“cross claims…so closely connected with [the plaintiff’s] demands that it would be manifestly unjust to allow him to enforce payment without taking into account the cross claim”.

The common law right of set off is a shield not a sword. It is to protect individuals who must pay a contractual party but who risk not being paid within the same contract. It is not a toy for self righteous individuals to use to net down their receivables ledgers. With regard to tenancy agreements the 'right of set off' is generally regarded as being with the 'tenant' and is protected in that a tenant may not be persecuted where, for example, they withhold rent from a landlord who has failed to meet their contractual obligations (say providing heating)

Here is an equivalent prior case in which the right of setoff was overturned because the landlord did not give due care to claims by the tenant.

This was followed by Lightman J in Fuller v Happy Shopper Markets Ltd [2001], where the landlord's bailiffs, in levying distress for arrears of rent, had gone so far as to sell the tenant's goods at an allegedly substantial undervalue. The tenant's cross-claim here was in respect of rent overpaid as a result of a mistake of fact and/or law. The judge held that the cross-claim was so closely connected as to make it unconscionable for the landlord to insist upon satisfaction of its claim without giving appropriate credit. He went on to say that a landlord minded to levy distress in such circumstances was bound to take the greatest care to ensure that there were no claims that might be available to the tenant by way of equitable set-off.

http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/9648/1123/

You might argue that the tenant has failed to pay his rent but we have failed to establish that a contract exists, that the owner of the property is aware that rent was being charged, that the let property is legally insured and registered as such. We have also established that the landlords agent (op) has failed to give the tenant reasonable notice of a claim against them, reasonable time to meet or object to that claim, and that the landlord has entered the tenants property without permission, removed their goods without permission and intends to liquidate them for a nominal sum(if they have not already done so).

As I said before, the property owner and the OP do not have a leg to stand on. Being a landlord is a privilege, not a right. In this case it is being abused.

Stella66

Thanks all for you advice. He has not turned up yet or made any contact despite the fact that l have sent messages on his facebook, email and mobile. Anyway l have now sold all the items in the flat, changed the locks and given them back to my cousin.
I l said earlier rent was not the only money he owed to me, he borrowed money around £1,700. The service charge for the flat, not rent is £300 in arrears and there is an outstanding water bill of 350. So that is £2350. After Ebaying and Gumtreeing l got £750, that means he still owes me £1,650. He owns a car but l dont know where he left it. In the evnt that he turns up, l will grab the car keys and keep the car until he pays. The rent, l suppose l have to let it go because it will raise tenancy issues.

jjlandlord

Stella66 wrote: »

In the evnt that he turns up, l will grab the car keys and keep the car until he pays.

If you "grab" car keys off someone you will be arrested on criminal charges... Or he will not let go easily and he will be arrested on criminal charges while you rest in hospital.

Stella66

He will put them on the table while he ask why the keys to the flat are not working, then l can get them. I wont physical grab them from him because l wont be able to. But l can get them from him one way or the other. The question is can l keep the car? I cant claim the money through the cause because l dont know where to send the papers, so if l keep the car he can bring the money and get his car back.

IronWolf

You wont have criminal proceedings against you, but he could sue you for the amount as you have no right to his belongings.

I would write to him, with proof, giving him 2 weeks to arrange for his property to be removed from your house or you will dispose of it as appropriate. Then you have a defence should he try to sue you.