Can l be arrested for this?

Stella66

Thank you all for your input in this. It has all made so much sense, sometimes when you are so emotionally consumed you need fresh opinions based on the facts presented.
I have made my decision, l guess l will have to face the judge or jury or whoever because the items will be listed on Ebay and Gumtree today.

daisymay2008

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Whilst I respect everyone's 'take' on whether it would be theft or not, is it worth taking any sort of risk?

Best to try the easier options first?

Like I have said, I haven't advised the OP to take the stuff I have simply given the points of law that provide a clear defence to Theft in these circumstances, likewise there are defences for all sorts of crime, Theft being only one of them

antrobus

daisymay2008 wrote: »

Yes but I'm dealing with this specific question from OP, I cannot comment on landlords rights and civil law because I have no knowledge on those subjects, i am simply dealing with the theft question, and the law states that it is not Theft if you believe you have a legal right to the property

Well the specific question raised by the OP was;

Stella66 wrote: »

Im planning to sell his futniture to recover the rent money. Can l be in trouble for this?

And as I said, it would be up to the magistrates or jury (and if necessary the court of appeal) to determine whether in any particular set of circumstances a specific individual honestly believed that they had a legal right to the property.

Given that the law appears to state that landords don't have the right to seize the property of residential tenants in lieu of rent arrears, and the fact that the OP doesn't even own the property that was rented out in the first place, I can't quite see how OP could claim that they believed that they had a right to do so.

And as a simple matter of fact; now that the OP has raised the question in an open Internet forum, and has been told that there is (at the very least) some doubt about their right to levy distress, they can't very well claim that they believed that they had the right to do so, now can they?

daisymay2008

Stella66 wrote: »

Thank you all for your input in this. It has all made so much sense, sometimes when you are so emotionally consumed you need fresh opinions based on the facts presented.
I have made my decision, l guess l will have to face the judge or jury or whoever because the items will be listed on Ebay and Gumtree today.

Good on you, I would have done exactly the same in your situation, please come back on and let me know if you get arrested and/or charged with Theft as I'm sure you won't even if the ex reports you, if you do get arrested ask for a lawyer and they will know all about the defences I have raised previously

Kohoutek

daisymay2008 wrote: »

, if you do get arrested ask for a lawyer and they will know all about the defences I have raised previously

There aren't any valid defences in this case, because the OP knows what's she's doing is a crime.

Kohoutek

Theft Act 1968, s. 2

“Dishonestly”

(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—

(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

Doesn't apply

(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

Doesn't apply

(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

Doesn't apply

(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.

antrobus

daisymay2008 wrote: »

To be honest I'm getting a bit board now, I have provided the law that states the OP would have a CLEAR defence to this being Theft as they are owed money.....

But;

Stella66 wrote: »

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 . .

It's therefore not clear that there is a debt due to the OP. It appears that the OP has decided to charge rent despite the fact that the owner of the property didn't require any.

BitterAndTwisted

OP: to protect yourself you could have your cousin, the ex-partner's landlord, instruct you IN WRITING to dispose of the ex's furniture. That way, you would purely be acting as your cousin's agent in their absence. Any possible come-back in the future would be your cousin's responsibility and not yours.

Kohoutek

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

OP: to protect yourself you could have your cousin, the ex-partner's landlord, instruct you IN WRITING to dispose of the ex's furniture. That way, you would purely be acting as your cousin's agent in their absence. Any possible come-back in the future would be your cousin's responsibility and not yours.

:rotfl:

That doesn't protect her, unless you think written evidence of a conspiracy to commit theft is a defence...

G_M

Well it's been a long time since I read such a load of useless opinion offered up as advice!

1) the original question. Selling someone else's belongings without their permission is theft. If money is owed, eg for rent, then there are legal ways to pursue this (however impractical in reality). Two wrongs don't make a right.

2) Was there a tenancy? Depends if rent was agreed. If rent was agreed there was a tenancy (verbal not written, but just as valid legally.)

The home-owner apparantly said no rent was required, which would make the occupant a licencee, not a tenant. However the OP later agreed rent with the occupant, so the question then is a) was the OP entitled/authorised by the owner to make this subsequent arrangement, and b) was the rent paid to the owner (landlord) or kept by the OP (in which case arguably it was not rent but was some kind of gift to a 3rd party for arranging the Licence)

3) IS there still a tenancy? Assuming there was originally a tenancy, it can only end by mutual agreement, or statutory notice. It appears no agreement was reached to end the tenancy and no notice was given by either side. Therefore the tenancy continues. That means the tenant can still be required to pay rent, but also means the landlord (or his agent) can be charged with unlawful eviction if he changes the locks or similar.

Read this on tenancy abandonment.

4) Abandoned possessions. What can the 'landlord' do? Read here. This also applies even if there was NOT ever a tenancy (see 2 above).