Ex won't give property back

Guest101

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

I meant with him there. If he's got nothing to hide, then I can't see why he won't let her in?

Then again it's probably a fruitless exercise, as he's probably moved them on either to somewhere else or sold them by now anyhow.

I'm glad you're presuming he's guilty.


It's his house, why let anyone in? It's not suspicious.


Case and point: Can I come to your house to have a look round? You can be there of course.

elisebutt65

Just a (probably irrelevant) thought. You said the house was rented in your name? Did the landlord agree to change the name on the tenancy agreement? Otherwise you are still liable for rent and entitled to enter.

Guest101

elisebutt65 wrote: »

Just a (probably irrelevant) thought. You said the house was rented in your name? Did the landlord agree to change the name on the tenancy agreement? Otherwise you are still liable for rent and entitled to enter.

It was rented in his name.


However, that's a good thing for the OP, because:


Even if it was rented in her name, entering without permission would be harassment and the ex would be covered under the protection from eviction act.


Moreso the OP would be a defacto LL and need to ensure that she complied with all relevant landlord legislation. She would in essence be subletting, which brings it's own problems.

Dill

The wheres and whys about the OP's failed marriage don't matter, but I wonder if legally her property is deemed to be their property, given that they are still married? Maybe OP will let us know how she got on.

Guest101 wrote: »

Sorry now we're advising trespassing?
So we're bordering stalking and harassment?

Don't over-react. If she had a set of keys I would go round to look for the cameras while he's not there. But she hasn't so it's irrelevant.

Georgiegirl256

Guest101 wrote: »

I'm glad you're presuming he's guilty.


It's his house, why let anyone in? It's not suspicious.


Case and point: Can I come to your house to have a look round? You can be there of course.

No, because A, I've never been in a relationship with you and so won't have any of your items, and B, I don't let strangers in my house for a random snoop around.

I'm presuming he's guilty as much as you are presuming she's guilty (in your post above), but all any of us can do is go on the information that's been given out, and as such yes, something does seem suss to me.

Why do you have to turn every thread into a drama? It appears you don't like women very much?

Dill

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Why do you have to turn every thread into a drama?

It's his usual style....

onomatopoeia99

skint_chick wrote: »

Seems very strange that you wouldn't miss £5k of camera equipment - that's got to be a large box/case of equipment

To use Nikon as an example, one decent full frame DSLR (e.g. D4s) and one decent 24-70/2.8 lens will use all of that budget and not take a lot of space in a camera bag.

Guest101

Dill wrote: »

The wheres and whys about the OP's failed marriage don't matter, but I wonder if legally her property is deemed to be their property, given that they are still married? Maybe OP will let us know how she got on.



Don't over-react. If she had a set of keys I would go round to look for the cameras while he's not there. But she hasn't so it's irrelevant.

Exactly you're advising her to enter the property without permission....


How is that not harassment and trespass?

Guest101

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

No, because A, I've never been in a relationship with you and so won't have any of your items, and B, I don't let strangers in my house for a random snoop around.

I'm presuming he's guilty as much as you are presuming she's guilty (in your post above), but all any of us can do is go on the information that's been given out, and as such yes, something does seem suss to me.

Why do you have to turn every thread into a drama? It appears you don't like women very much?

I didn't presume she's guilty, I said the police would be failing in their duty to not investigate the possibility.


Why are you genderising the argument? I didn't say that this was because she's a woman, she just happens to be female. Male or female the advice would be the same.

Guest101

Dill wrote: »

It's his usual style....

I'm just giving my opinion. If you don't like it, feel free to ignore my posts.


If you click my username, you will find an "add to ignore list" link