2006 debt being chased-threat to remove windows from house

poppasmurf_bewdley

There have been several examples in the newspapers over the past year or so of companies doing this with no action from the law.

There was even an example of a company demolishing a porch because of non payment for building it.

So long as no damage is caused to the fabric of the building, I can't see a problem.

Karonher

If you accept you had the goods just pay for them. Why should you get free windows?

I am sure it would be more expensive to get replacement windows and facing the shame of having the neighbours know you were having the old ones re-possessed for trying to worm your way out of paying.

andyfromotley

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

There have been several examples in the newspapers over the past year or so of companies doing this with no action from the law.

There was even an example of a company demolishing a porch because of non payment for building it.

So long as no damage is caused to the fabric of the building, I can't see a problem.

That may well be the case, but it doesn't make it legal, the reason being, it isn't.

leftfield20

If they did take the windows out would they have to put the old ones back? (I'm assuming the company took these away)
i.e. Make it like it was before?

Before anyone get's crazy I'm not making a judgment etc etc, just genuinely interested in this matter!

poppasmurf_bewdley

andyfromotley wrote: »

That may well be the case, but it doesn't make it legal, the reason being, it isn't.

So please explain which law you are referring to?

timbstoke

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

So please explain which law you are referring to?

There's criminal damage, for starters. Then there's theft - you can hardly come back 7 years later and claim you just lent the windows to OP, after all - they were sold to OP fair and square, and any issue with payment is entirely seperate to that issue. Breaking and entering would be another one. We can even throw trespass in there if you like.

Think about it. What would be the point in having the Consumer Credit Act, a court system, certificated bailiffs, or any of the other things which exist to enforce a contract, if creditors could simply waltz in and remove goods? By your thinking, if I stop paying my mortgage, the bank can simply stroll in one morning and remove me from my home. Repossession just doesn't work like that.

lovinituk

timbstoke wrote: »

There's criminal damage, for starters. Then there's theft - you can hardly come back 7 years later and claim you just lent the windows to OP, after all - they were sold to OP fair and square

No they weren't as that would have required the OP actually paying for them. The OP has stolen them. The company would just be retrieving their property.

poppasmurf_bewdley

timbstoke wrote: »

There's criminal damage, for starters. Then there's theft - you can hardly come back 7 years later and claim you just lent the windows to OP, after all - they were sold to OP fair and square, and any issue with payment is entirely seperate to that issue. Breaking and entering would be another one. We can even throw trespass in there if you like.

Think about it. What would be the point in having the Consumer Credit Act, a court system, certificated bailiffs, or any of the other things which exist to enforce a contract, if creditors could simply waltz in and remove goods? By your thinking, if I stop paying my mortgage, the bank can simply stroll in one morning and remove me from my home. Repossession just doesn't work like that.

But we are not talking about house repossession.

The title of goods does not pass to the purchaser until the goods are paid for. Until they are, the title remains with the seller, who is entitled to take them back if they are not paid for.

So tell me, who has title to the windows? Certainly not the OP. They are not his. The fact that if the seller takes them back and leaves a hole in the wall is neither here nor there. As long as he doesn't damage the fabric of the house when removing them.

If the seller did start to remove the windows, all the police would do is ensure he does not cause any damage to the house or householder. The OP would have no call on the windows, they're not his.

timbstoke

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

But we are not talking about house repossession.

The title of goods does not pass to the purchaser until the goods are paid for. Until they are, the title remains with the seller, who is entitled to take them back if they are not paid for.

Not true - SOGA s.18: Unless a different intention appears, the following are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer.
Rule 1.—Where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made, and it is immaterial whether the time of payment or the time of delivery, or both, be postponed.
Rule 2.—Where there is a contract for the sale of specific goods and the seller is bound to do something to the goods for the purpose of putting them into a deliverable state, the property does not pass until the thing is done and the buyer has notice that it has been done.

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

So tell me, who has title to the windows? Certainly not the OP. They are not his. The fact that if the seller takes them back and leaves a hole in the wall is neither here nor there. As long as he doesn't damage the fabric of the house when removing them.

If OP is the landowner, then they most certainly are his. As windows, they are chattels, and the seller could retain title. Once fitted, they are fixtures and therefore are the property of the landowner. Here's a couple of sources for you:

Holland v Hodgson (1872): "an article which is affixed to the land even slightly is to be considered as part of the land, unless the circumstances are such as to shew that it was intended to all along continue a chattel, the onus lying on those who contend that it is a chattel." "Thus blocks of stone placed one on the top of another without any mortar or cement for the purpose of forming a dry stone wall would become part of the land, though the same stones, if deposited in a builder's yard and for convenience sake stacked on the top of each other in the form of a wall, would remain chattels."

Botham vs TSB Bank (1996): “If the item viewed objectively, is intended to be permanent and to afford a lasting improvement to the building, the thing will have become a fixture. If the attachment is temporary and is no more than necessary for the item to be used and enjoyed, then it will remain a chattel.”

The seller cannot contract out of this in their T&Cs:

Melluish v BMI (1996): "The terms expressly or implicitly agreed between the fixer of the chattel and the owner of the land cannot affect the determination of the question whether, in law, the chattel has become a fixture and therefore in law belongs to the owner of the soil: . . . The terms of such agreement will regulate the contractual rights to sever the chattel from the land as between the parties to that contract and, where an equitable right is conferred by the contract, as against certain third parties. But such agreement cannot prevent the chattel, once fixed, becoming in law part of the land and as such owned by the owner of the land so long as it remains fixed."

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

If the seller did start to remove the windows, all the police would do is ensure he does not cause any damage to the house or householder. The OP would have no call on the windows, they're not his.

They are his, as demonstrated above, and should the police take the action you suggest, OP would be well within his rights to make a strong complaint, since removing them would be theft, as made clear in Melluish v BMI.

andyfromotley

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

So please explain which law you are referring to?

Its criminal damage. (to the house, you need to consider damage in a wider context than perhaps a lay person might) And yes you can criminally damage your own property in certain circumstances,

Its Theft. (yes you can indeed steal property in these circumstances. Property does not have to be acquired by payment their are many avenues to ownership, including specifically (continued use, having a right or interest in an article)

There have been prosecutions for very similar acts, criminally and civil claims. Google is your friend in finding them.

However this is all somewhat of a moot point, i doubt if anything would happen if they removed the windows, however that still doesn't make it legal, because as i said earlier, it isn't.

Can i just make clear i think this person should pay. They had the windows, they were happy with them, they should pay for them.