We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Items left after completion.
Options
Comments
-
A landlord has a duty of care to a tenant's property left behind but a buyer has no such duty of care to a vendor's property.
If it was precious to them they would have taken it. Now you have a load of tat to get rid of. Tat which might cost you money to dispose of.0 -
BitterAndTwisted wrote: »A landlord has a duty of care to a tenant's property left behind but a buyer has no such duty of care to a vendor's property.
Well, even if no duty of care: the buyer finds items that belong to the vendor, as such he cannot do whatever he wants with them before at least attempting to contact the vendor. Unless said items are clearly rubbish.0 -
One person's "clearly rubbish" is another's "cherished valuables".
"Well, even if no duty of care: the buyer finds items that belong to the vendor, as such he cannot do whatever he wants with them before at least attempting to contact the vendor."
Au contraire! There might be a moral duty but there most certainly is not a legal one. In this particular circumstance the likely owner of the property is in prison, so is not in a position to claim or retrieve the items. They can either be disposed of or kept by the buyer.
0 -
BitterAndTwisted wrote: »One person's "clearly rubbish" is another's "cherished valuables".
I don't think a refuse bag full of dirty/rubbish could reasonably pass that test...
BitterAndTwisted wrote: »Au contraire! There might be a moral duty but there most certainly is not a legal one. In this particular circumstance the likely owner of the property is in prison, so is not in a position to claim or retrieve the items. They can either be disposed of or kept by the buyer.
I'd be happy to concede, but I'm quite reserved regarding the law on keeping as yours what is obviously not.0 -
-
take the items out of the shed and stick the biggest padlock on the thickest chain you can find.
i did that with a massive set of extending ladders left behind when i bought a repo'd house
Who remembers when X Factor was just Roman suncream?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards