Urgent - Landlord holding work tools hostage

matttye

densol wrote: »

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 .....

Agreed that on the face of it it would appear to be blackmail, although he may have a defence under s21(1)(a) and (b) Theft Act 1968.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21

densol_2

matttye wrote: »

Agreed that on the face of it it would appear to be blackmail, although he may have a defence under s21(1)(a) and (b) Theft Act 1968.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21

I think the difficulty he would face arguing " reasonableness" would be the landlord / tenant relationship ( and the landlord expecting to know the rules - especially surrounding protected deposits etc) the value and rareness of the goods v the value of the debt and the time scales imposed in the demand. Whilst he could argue it, I doubt a jury would accept his defence.

macman

OP, we are 74 posts in so you need to confirm if your friend is simply a lodger or if he has a legal tenancy. All you have told us so far is that he 'rents a room' in a property in which the LL also lives-that tells us nothing.
As already explained, it is not an illegal eviction if he is a lodger.
Is the property an HMA, how may units are let etc?
If it's a tenancy, his deposit should have been protected-was it?

Guest101

Whilst we've debated the legalities, which I think is important.


Practical advice would be, contact the police to attend to prevent a breach of the peace. Video yourself handing over the cash.


Collect the tools.


Begin MCOL for the £500.

Salemicus

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.

Right on the first part, totally wrong on the second. You posted an excellent excerpt from the judgement, but you completely mangle it in your interpretation.

The question isn't whether the defendant saw his actions as dishonest. The question is whether the defendant knew that ordinary and reasonable people would see his actions as dishonest.

So when you write:

If the landlord believes he has a right to do what he's doing then the second part of the ghosh test fails.

You are completely wrong. If I believe that I have the "right" to take cash from the till because "I'm such a hard worker" or "all property is theft," but I know that most people would view that as dishonest, then I'm guilty of theft under R v. Ghosh, because I "realised that was was doing was by those standards [i.e. the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people] dishonest." But, you are right that if I have a mental age of 5 and so I don't realist that most people would view that as dishonest, then it's not theft.

So the question is:

1. Is the landlord acting dishonestly by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?
2. Does he know that?

The landlord's idiosyncratic view of his own rights is not the issue. I think it's pretty clear he's acting dishonestly.

daska

OK, I haven't seen the contract and friend was never given a copy of it after signing (despite asking repeatedly).

Shelter, CAB and Law Centre have all confirmed that the LL retaining the tools is illegal. Law Centre has cited Torts(Interference with Goods) Act 1977. The Law Centre said to call the police if the LL tried to retain the goods, but when friend did as suggested the police declined to act stating it was a civil problem.

It's the LL who is harassing with frequent texts moving the goalposts as to how much, when he wants it, what it's for etc, demanding cash be put through his letter box so the tools can be collected at a later date I.E. no receipt for the cash so no evidence any alleged damage has actually been paid for.

I've sent him back to the law centre today to show them the dozens of texts the LL sent last night and ask for further guidance. At the moment his priority is getting his tools back so he can work.

Guest101

daska wrote: »

OK, I haven't seen the contract and friend was never given a copy of it after signing (despite asking repeatedly).

Shelter, CAB and Law Centre have all confirmed that the LL retaining the tools is illegal. Law Centre has cited Torts(Interference with Goods) Act 1977. The Law Centre said to call the police if the LL tried to retain the goods, but when friend did as suggested the police declined to act stating it was a civil problem.

It's the LL who is harassing with frequent texts moving the goalposts as to how much, when he wants it, what it's for etc, demanding cash be put through his letter box so the tools can be collected at a later date I.E. no receipt for the cash so no evidence any alleged damage has actually been paid for.

I've sent him back to the law centre today to show them the dozens of texts the LL sent last night and ask for further guidance. At the moment his priority is getting his tools back so he can work.

Interference with Goods act means the LL cannot sell the goods (which we already told you).


The police saying it's a civil matter, well that's been discussed and I don't think there is a conclusion.


(you need to speak to a senior officer)


Illegal, does not mean criminal.


As I suggested, attend, along with the police. Pay up, under duress, collect the tools and then start a small claims action

thesaint

4k of brand new tools are probaly worth a grand secondhand to the right buyer, so £500 for a distressed sale sounds about right.

daska

thesaint wrote: »

4k of brand new tools are probaly worth a grand secondhand to the right buyer, so £500 for a distressed sale sounds about right.

£4K is the second hand price!

150940

Guest101 wrote: »

Interference with Goods act means the LL cannot sell the goods (which we already told you).


The police saying it's a civil matter, well that's been discussed and I don't think there is a conclusion.


(you need to speak to a senior officer)


Illegal, does not mean criminal.


As I suggested, attend, along with the police. Pay up, under duress, collect the tools and then start a small claims action

Why?????????