Urgent - Landlord holding work tools hostage

matttye

Guest101 wrote: »

I was being quite sincere.

If you say the law states what I described as not illegal, then you can surely show me?

I believe the action amounts to causing continual alarm and distress.

Course of conduct has to be on at least two occasions.

Also if the landlord can show he was acting reasonably that would be a defence to any charge of harassment. He could simply state that he believes the tenant owes him money and once paid he would let the matter rest.

Refusing to return someone's property is not harassment. Contacting someone continually to demand money in a threatening manner may well be. It's not clear who is the one doing the contacting - landlord or tenant.

matttye

150940 wrote: »

I think other members will disagree with you on that point. If the other members are reasonable and honest and think the landlord has acted dishonestly then he'd be convicted of theft if it came down to it. R v Ghosh says so.

R v Ghosh is actually a joint objective/subjective test.

What Ghosh actually says is that if someone's actions are not considered dishonest according to the standards of ordinary and reasonable people (objective test), the prosecution fails immediately.

It then goes on to say that if the actions are objectively dishonesty, the question must be asked of whether the defendant saw his actions as dishonest (subjective test). If not, again the prosecution fails.

Lord Lane CJ:

"In determining whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails.


If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest."

So dishonesty must be both objectively and subjectively dishonest.

150940

matttye wrote: »

R v Ghosh is actually a joint objective/subjective test.

What Ghosh actually says is that if someone's actions are not considered dishonest according to the standards of ordinary and reasonable people (objective test), the prosecution fails immediately.

It then goes on to say that if the actions are objectively dishonesty, the question must be asked of whether the defendant saw his actions as dishonest (subjective test). If not, again the prosecution fails.

Lord Lane CJ:

"In determining whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails.


If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest."

So dishonesty must be both objectively and subjectively dishonest.

Oh right and are you qualified to make that decision? I'd suggest you're not and therefore if the tools are sold it may well be for a court to decide. I'd say that most people here see his actions as dishonest so he'd be convicted if they were on a jury.

PasturesNew

The LL cannot sell the goods.
The LL has a legal Duty of Care to hold onto them for a reasonable amount of time, so the owner may collect them.

For those that wish to see 'evidence', there was a hilarious episode of Judge Rinder yesterday (?) - unbelievable idiots in the courtroom .... get to the bit after the break where he goes through the bit where the woman emptied the bloke's stuff out onto the front garden as he'd said he'd be collecting it and failed to turn up.

Rinder was quite clear about law/obligations and belongings, as well as covering selling them to clear debts a LL believed were owed.

http://www.itv.com/hub/judge-rinder

Episode: http://www.itv.com/hub/judge-rinder/2a3290a0121 - there's 28 days left, you have to register to watch (bl00dy annoying that is)

150940

What you also need to consider its four grands worth of tools against a £500 debt. Say he honestly believes he has a right to the tools and sells them for a grand. If he fails to return the excess £500. Is that stolen property?

matttye

150940 wrote: »

Oh right and are you qualified to make that decision? I'd suggest you're not and therefore if the tools are sold it may well be for a court to decide. I'd say that most people here see his actions as dishonest so he'd be convicted if they were on a jury.

A properly directed jury should consider the subjective test as well as the objective test.

Just because they consider his actions dishonest does not make his actions dishonest. It has to be subjectively dishonest as well. If the landlord believes he has a right to do what he's doing then the second part of the ghosh test fails.

A 20 year old man with the mental age of a five year old could walk out of a shop without paying for items. His actions are objectively dishonest but clearly he may not comprehend that his own actions are dishonest. In such circumstances should someone like that be prosecuted? That's why we have a subjective test for dishonesty.

I am qualified to advise people who are detained or attend voluntarily at police stations and I learned about theft as part of my studies, so I am in fact qualified to advise on such matters.

150940

matttye wrote: »

A properly directed jury should consider the subjective test as well as the objective test.

Just because they consider his actions dishonest does not make his actions dishonest. It has to be subjectively dishonest as well. If the landlord believes he has a right to do what he's doing then the second part of the ghosh test fails.

A 20 year old man with the mental age of a five year old could walk out of a shop without paying for items. His actions are objectively dishonest but clearly he may not comprehend that his own actions are dishonest. In such circumstances should someone like that be prosecuted? That's why we have a subjective test for dishonesty.

I am qualified to advise people who are detained or attend voluntarily at police stations and I learned about theft as part of my studies, so I am in fact qualified to advise on such matters.

Well let's assume the LL hasn't got special needs and that the value of the goods are £3500 more than the alleged debt. Put your legal advisors training to good use and tell us why it wouldn't be dishonest.

densol_2

150940 wrote: »

Well let's assume the LL hasn't got special needs and that the value of the goods are £3500 more than the alleged debt. Put your legal advisors training to good use and tell us why it wouldn't be dishonest.

This is actually " blackmail" the OPs friend should go back to the police and demand action. You cannot just take someones property and " demand " with menances an unwarranted amount of money ! What about the deposit sum ? Courts enforce " debts" properly owed - not henchmen holding others property to ransom !

The landlord cannot exercise a " lien " over goods like this ( as a garage would to pay for a debt for work on car etc )

Blackmail ! ...... But what do I know ive only been a senior criminal solictor for 23 years .....

skintandfat

I assume this is not in Scotland as the landlord could be charged with theft (to deny someone the use of their article is the same as theft under Scots law- hence the only people who clamp vehicles up here are police and councils, under different laws)

matttye

150940 wrote: »

Well let's assume the LL hasn't got special needs and that the value of the goods are £3500 more than the alleged debt. Put your legal advisors training to good use and tell us why it wouldn't be dishonest.

The point is that whether you or I think it's dishonest is only part of the question, the other part is whether the landlord thinks it's dishonest!

If the landlord intends to keep the entirety of the money for the tools even in excess of the amount to cover the money he believes he is owed, then it's likely he would be convicted of theft for the additional tools sold. It's hard to see how he would believe he had a right to keep the entire amount made from the sale.