Vendor illegally entered property after completion?

AdrianC

Or, in short, "forget it and move on".

born2shine

icantbelieveitsnotbutter wrote: »

Hi All, hoping you can help please?

I have just bought a property, which completed on Friday morning. I was working on the Friday so didn't go to collect the keys until later in the day, I popped round to the house to make sure all was well and I was happy that it was. The seller had left a couple items of furniture, which although not formally part of the sale, assumed that they couldn't be bothered to take on and a bonus if I wanted them myself. For info the seller wasn't living there, it was previously let out but he had no tenants for a while prior me buying it, so sold as vacant possession. I am currently renting and I'm on my last week now.

I was also working Saturday, so didn't go round the property until Sunday to spend a full day there. To my shock the items of furniture left had since disappeared! This means the seller has since entered the property, long after completion, presumably having retained a set of keys?! There was no sign of forced entry, so not a burglary, and not the typical items that would be stolen...

To me this is outrageous and must be illegal? The items were of modest value, but either way, still theft too, as from completion I own the property and its contents? I've since had to get the locks changed at my expense so nothing I put in the property walks either...

Where do I stand legally?

That is really outrageous, but changing the locks post completion would have been your expense anyway and something you need to do.

How much furniture was taken? Was it on the inventory? If it's not that much furniture I would suggest just letting it go, honestly it's not worth the hassle, if they do attempt to enter your property now or force a break in now that you have changed the keys then it's definitely a matter for the police.

Some people are rude, and plain cheeky.

Thrugelmir

Twopints wrote: »

What a ridiculous, lazy, meaningless response. You might as well post it on every single thread on this and any other forum. Reported as off topic.

I think that the comment was actually made to put this thread into context and put matters into a real perspective.

chanz4

CPS would need to prove on the balance of probability that it was the offender, what if an ex tenant still had a key? I know for a fact I have an old key to a house I rented 4 years ago and forgot to give back

icantbelieveitsnotbutter_2

Thought you were out, thrugel...?

I think, regardless of the issue in hand, the problem is proving it - even though I know exactly what has happened... :-(

kinger101

chanz4 wrote: »

CPS would need to prove on the balance of probability that it was the offender, what if an ex tenant still had a key? I know for a fact I have an old key to a house I rented 4 years ago and forgot to give back

Nonsense. The CPS prosecute criminal offences, which is beyond reasonable doubt. The problem here is even if a crime has been committed (which I doubt), this clearly wouldn't go to court.

Balance of probability is for civil proceedings. The problem here is there is no consequential loss, or likelihood it will continue.

HappyMJ

kinger101 wrote: »

Nonsense. The CPS prosecute criminal offences, which is beyond reasonable doubt. The problem here is even if a crime has been committed (which I doubt), this clearly wouldn't go to court.

Balance of probability is for civil proceedings. The problem here is there is no consequential loss.

The crime is trespass. There is also no evidence of forced entry, violence was not present and the trespasser left. It's not in the public interest to prosecute.

If it ever did get to court the offender wouldn't be punished in any way and the sentence would only be a conditional discharge which basically just means don't do it again.

kinger101

HappyMJ wrote: »

The crime is trespass.

I don't think trespass is a crime.

icantbelieveitsnotbutter_2

Changing the locks was a direct result of the entry and consequential loss to me. Arguably from advice here I may well have done that at some point anyway, but in this instance there's a direct relation to the actions of the entry and mine to change the locks.

I'm no expert, but is trespass not simply having a walk through someone's garden within invitation, for example? Simply from my perspective I'd like to think the 'crime' is greater in this case. The keys were purposefully retained, there was intent to enter the property out of ownership, to take items out of that property without any consent, etc. Is that not so?

icantbelieveitsnotbutter_2

*without invitation (really should proof read, apologies!)