Can l be arrested for this?

daisymay2008

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Absolutely agree with this.

You said you are responsible for the house - what does this mean?

Are you acting as the agent for your cousin? Is your cousin receiving the rent? (I am guessing this is the case since you say you helped your ex. out with the rent)

If your cousin receives the rent then he is the landlord. A contract has been created by the paying of rent. The lack of a written agreement makes no difference.

Your ex.owes you the money you lent him for the rent.

You cannot sell other people's property without going through certain 'steps'. (I will post again with these when you confirm the above facts.)

Please clarify.:)

wrong i'm afraid,

dealing purely with the selling of his property, then she is entitled to sell the items in lieu of money she is owed but obviously for no more than she is owed

Kohoutek

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

The deserting partner had no tenancy agreement either with the landlord or with the OP so I can't see how could it possibly be an unlawful eviction?

Would you care to explain how you come to the conclusion that it could be?

You don't need a tenancy agreement to be a tenant...

dancingfairy

It depends on whether the cousin is renting it to the OP or the OP AND partner or whether the OP is acting on behalf of the owner -surely?
To me the OP is renting it from the cousin and the ex is extra but that's my non-legal guess.
It might be worth going to the CAB for some help? you may qualify for some free/cheap help from a solicitor and the CAB can point you the right way.
Best of Luck
df

pmlindyloo

daisymay2008 wrote: »

wrong i'm afraid,

dealing purely with the selling of his property, then she is entitled to sell the items in lieu of money she is owed but obviously for no more than she is owed

I am more than happy to be corrected but would you be kind enough to give a link for this information? (always good to learn:))

I was assuming that the OP is not the landlord, by the way.

brit1234

daisymay2008 wrote: »

It will NOT be theft to take the items even if he paid for them

1) Theft Act 1968

A person will NOT be regarded as DISHONEST if they BELIEVED that They had a RIGHT IN LAW to take the property

e.g someone attends a course and doesn't pay the course fee, the lecturer then takes that persons mobile phone in lieu of payment (this would not be theft)

Likewise in your situation, you are owed money so you can take and sell his stuff

If there is no DISHONESTY then the offence of Theft is not complete

Yes it is clearly theft. The title of this thread is "Can l be arrested for this?" Where the original poster has taken the time to create a post where he believes his actions may be criminal if carried out. He is seeking confirmation of this and has been told they are criminal.

To sell the items after having thoughts it is dishonest is no protection. To ask people if it is criminal and get told by members here it is criminal and then carry it out is theft.

In the eyes of the law at this point if he takes possession of the items to sell the original poster would be guilty of theft. Proving his thought process in a court of law however would be harder.

daisymay2008

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I am more than happy to be corrected but would you be kind enough to give a link for this information? (always good to learn:))

I was assuming that the OP is not the landlord, by the way.

I didn't take it from a link I know it, i'm sure you could google the Theft Act 1968....

There are certain elements of Theft that all have to be met for the offence to be carried out, there are many defences to the crime aswell, one of which I stated above, if you are owed money then you have a right to take that persons property to recoup payment but obviously you cannot take anymore

There is also a lot of case law in particular around the 'dishonesty' element of Theft (much of it very boring)

however R v GHOSH 1982 hits the nail on the head and is still used to this day

'In determining dishonesty - the judge will apply a two stage test'

1) Whether a reasonable and honest person would have viewed the act as dishonest

2) Whether the defendant realised by the standards of a reasonable and honest person that what they were doing was dishonest

If the answer is no then the jury will always be directed to acquit

Stella66

Werdnal wrote: »

Bit of a complicated situation, and I think we need some more info to be able to advise.

Who was receiving the rent for the property? You or your cousin?

I understand you have been helping your partner financially as they were stuggling with the rent, but even without a formal tenancy agreement, I think if rent has been paid, then an agreement of some form exists, between the tenant - your ex-p, and the LL - whoever received the rent.

If you are trying to recover the money you have "lent" your ex-p to meet rent to your cousin, this is slightly different to taking the furniture value in lieu of rent as if you were the LL here IYSWIM.

Was your cousin aware that your ex-p was living in their property?

As for changing the locks, that could be seen as illegal eviction, but if you are not the LL in the scenario, then you are not evicting anyone.

My cousin owns the flat, he works abroad. I do not live in the flat but its a couple of streets from my place.I told my cousin that he will be living there until he completes his course. He was ok for him to stay without paying, but l thought that is rather unfair, he will have to pay a little amount and the bills offcourse. He did pay for two months then complained about his student loan being delayed. So l we agreed that l will pay for him and he will pay back. Its not only rent money, but at one point his mobile was disconnected for any unpaid bill of over £200. I gave him a loan because our daughter is epileptic and normal the school phones when she has a seizure.I work over an hour away from home and he is the one who always get contacted.

antrobus

daisymay2008 wrote: »

It will NOT be theft to take the items even if he paid for them

1) Theft Act 1968

A person will NOT be regarded as DISHONEST if they BELIEVED that They had a RIGHT IN LAW to take the property

.....

Although of course you still have to convince the magistrates (or jury) that you did indeed believe that such a right existed. (Your worship, I honestly believed that I had a right in law to deprive Tesco of twelve cans of Special Brew and am therefore innocent of the charge...I'm not so sure that would work.)

Does the common law right of distress still exist for landlords? Apparently not for residential tenants.

See for example

"a landlord is *not* entitled to go in and take the tenants possessions"

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/02/19/urban-myth-landlords-can-take-tenants-property-if-they-are-in-rent-arrears/

or "distress is not available against residential tenants without the court’s leave"

http://www.rawlisonbutler.com/news/distress-and-insolvency--what-you-need-to-know

Ergo it's difficult to see how la landlord could claim that they honestly believed that they had a right in law to seize a tenant's possessions, when the law states that they specifically don't have that right.

daisymay2008

brit1234 wrote: »

Yes it is clearly theft. The title of this thread is "Can l be arrested for this?" Where the original poster has taken the time to create a post where he believes his actions may be criminal if carried out. He is seeking confirmation of this and has been told they are criminal.

To sell the items after having thoughts it is dishonest is no protection. To ask people if it is criminal and get told by members here it is criminal and then carry it out is theft.

In the eyes of the law at this point if he takes possession of the items to sell the original poster would be guilty of theft. Proving his thought process in a court of law however would be harder.

I haven't actually said OP will/will not be arrested, that will be a matter for the Police officer who investigates the matter, All I have said is the offence of Theft IS NOT made out in these circumstances and the OP would never in a month of sundays be charged with theft and it would not make the court process, it is clearly a civil matter, i have provided proven case law to prove that the offence of Theft is not made out as any Jury in the land would acquit the OP

brit1234

daisymay2008 He sells the stuff and I challenge any police officer in the country not to arrest him.

Your giving bad advice.:mad:

To the original poster, I am sure their are legal ways to recover the costs. I would spend more time looking them up rather than activities which will likely generate a PNCID.