Previous owners let themselves in!!!.

boliston

Trespass is purely a civil matter and nothing was stolen so no burglary has taken place. I would describe it as cheeky rather than malicious.

moneyistooshorttomention

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Ridiculous, it was their property they retrieved, so no theft going on.

The house became OP's on the Friday.

It was the following day they asked (via the EA) if they could have the child gate. By that point - the childgate belonged to the house and not the previous owner.

I'd have probably turned round on the Saturday and been annoyed enough at receiving a totally unnecessary phonecall (from my pov) to have said "Sorry - it's mine now and I've already given it to a friend of mine" and just put the phone down. I'm certainly astonished that OP waited in for them - as there's no way I would wait in for someone that was nothing to do with me like that.

contrivant

If it's just standard locks like this, then it's very easy to change yourself. You will either need a phillips head screwdriver or a small allen key.

I just changed ours on Saturday after completing on Friday, and I just watched a youtube video and job done. Unlike me, you should first take the lock out and measure it, cost me two trips to B&Q :P

Mr.Generous

for it to have been theft the child gate would have to belong to someone else, left in the home by mistake does not become the property of the new owner, ever heard of theft by finding? Ultimately a court would decide. Why go to those lengths? Change the locks! change the alarm code or fit an alarm! Yale wireless basic alarm from Aldi at the moment £70, add 2 universal remote controls from response electronics @ £29 you got yourself a security system that is easy to use and will deter all but a professional targeted burglary (unless you live in an isolated home).

When you weigh up the cost of your home and possessions verses maybe £300 in total for locks / alarm to protect it all ....

seven-day-weekend

I'd have just gone out and left the child gate outside so they could collect it.

moneyistooshorttomention

Quick google later - "chances upon an object which seems abandoned" as what is meant by "Theft by finding". Now I've had a watch and a gold bracelet fall off my wrist and not realised until later - one was in a workplace and the other out in the streets. I reported both of those as missing and wasn't handed either back - so that definitely was "theft by finding". Someone had found them and stolen them.

But I have my doubts the same criteria would apply to an object in a house. Add that childgates are literally attached to a house and I would think it would come under the "fixtures and fittings" thing of "anything in a house that wouldnt fall down if the house was picked up upside down" and would be OP's by that criteria.

A lesson for future reference to OP not to be "soft" enough to agree to hand over a possession of theirs like that and then even deliberately stay in waiting for it to be collected - as well as the lesson about changing the locks instantly one moves in. A lesson for the previous owners not to be absent-minded and think it's okay to put a stranger out to suit themselves.

Rain_Shadow

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I'd have probably turned round on the Saturday and been annoyed enough at receiving a totally unnecessary phonecall (from my pov) to have said "Sorry - it's mine now and I've already given it to a friend of mine" and just put the phone down. I'm certainly astonished that OP waited in for them - as there's no way I would wait in for someone that was nothing to do with me like that.

Seriously? Is that how you would like someone to treat you if you'd left something in your old house? The OP waited 10 minutes, hardly a massive inconvenience in trying to help someone.

Mr.Generous

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Quick google later - "chances upon an object which seems abandoned" as what is meant by "Theft by finding". Now I've had a watch and a gold bracelet fall off my wrist and not realised until later - one was in a workplace and the other out in the streets. I reported both of those as missing and wasn't handed either back - so that definitely was "theft by finding". Someone had found them and stolen them.

But I have my doubts the same criteria would apply to an object in a house. Add that childgates are literally attached to a house and I would think it would come under the "fixtures and fittings" thing of "anything in a house that wouldnt fall down if the house was picked up upside down" and would be OP's by that criteria.

A lesson for future reference to OP not to be "soft" enough to agree to hand over a possession of theirs like that and then even deliberately stay in waiting for it to be collected - as well as the lesson about changing the locks instantly one moves in. A lesson for the previous owners not to be absent-minded and think it's okay to put a stranger out to suit themselves.

Yes that's what I mean by a court would decide, enough uncertainty and open to interpretation to make it not a clear cut matter. So for the sake of a second hand child gate... do them a favour, leaving it at the side of the house was a good idea! Life has enough stresses and complications without making more, I certainly wouldn't get into a big battle over a second hand child gate. As for them coming in - well their key wouldn't have worked because like most people its the first job on the list.

booksurr

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I would call it both burglary and trespass. They trespassed into someone else's house and they stole something whilst there (ie the childgate). Definitely a concern they might still be regarding something else as "theirs" (even though it isn't) and be planning to trespass again and steal that too.

there are 5 elements to the charge of burglary:
- "entry": they used a key so there is no evidence of their entry other than the fact the gate has been removed
- "building": obvious
- "trespass": in law this is entry without authority, so in this case slightly blurred by the fact permission had been given on condition that they turn up within a defined time period, which they then missed, so were outside of the (verbal, but witnessed by the EA) authority
- "with intent": the ex owners honestly believed they had a right to take the child gate as verbal permission to do so had been given. They took nothing else (?) so have not stolen anything with intent
- "mens rea": in essence the entry to the building must be "reckless" . Obviously a grey area as they had a key so there was no force or damage and they thought they had "authority"

whether the charge of stealing a child gate can be made to stick on the basis it was now the property of the new owners, having been included in the sale of the building and left in situ on departure of the old owners, would be a nice legal debate

overall however the OP's reaction is OTT
- change the locks! That is something you should always expect to do when you move into a building previously occupied by someone else
- pay for it yourself
- move on with your life. The old owners asked in advance, it would appear they were delayed in their arrival. Yes they did not contact you again, yes they had retained a key, yes it was "wrong", but so what, no one has died and no one has had anything "stolen"!

PasturesNew

Those people who say you can change a lock yourselves are not "challenged".

About 16 years ago I bought a barrel to try to do this .... the minute I touched it it went everywhere and all the gubbins fell apart, so I shoved it back in the bag and never tried again.