Previous owners let themselves in!!!.

Kalamazoo

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.

You really are a deeply unpleasant person

booksurr

PasturesNew wrote: »

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.

16 years ago you could not look at a you tube video to see what to do before you even opened the packet

i agree however that in the modern PC world we must all pander to every conceivable minority in case they are "challenged"

cloo

Change the locks (which is a totally normal cost of moving house) and forget about it. They overstepped the boundaries by coming in, it was thoughtless, but that is all really.

Rain_Shadow

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

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.

.

Are they? The ones we used 20 years ago weren't. They used a screw mechanism and rubber pads to 'brace' between the wall and the newel post.

Cakeguts

AnotherJoe wrote: »

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

It is not just the fact that the took the child gate. It is also possible that they took something else that they had forgotten. I have a key to my neighbours house but I wouldn't enter unless I had their permission to do so and I certainly wouldn't let myself in when they were out to get something I had left behind when I last visited them.

There is no difference between me doing this and the previous owners going into the OPs house.

TBagpuss

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.

I'd already arranged for a locksmith to come round literally the evening of Completion Day when I bought current house - though that was partly down to having (perfectly correctly as it showed) decided the vendor was of the type not to be trusted in any way. I went to sleep that night with all locks duly safely changed already.

You won't be due to have them cover the cost of those locks - because it's deemed that buyers will automatically change the locks themselves anyway.

Burglary requires dishonest intent -the person has to enter with intent to commit a crime (specifically, to steal, cause deliberate damage or to cause serious injury)

Since they entered to recover something which you had agreed they could have, there was no intent to steal, so while they tresspased, they did not burgle.

Change the locks and move on.

AnotherJoe

Cakeguts wrote: »

It is not just the fact that the took the child gate. It is also possible that they took something else that they had forgotten. I have a key to my neighbours house but I wouldn't enter unless I had their permission to do so and I certainly wouldn't let myself in when they were out to get something I had left behind when I last visited them.

There is no difference between me doing this and the previous owners going into the OPs house.

Lots of things are "possible" but unless they did those things, its irrelevant so why raise it?

They retrieved their property. They committed trespass but thats not a criminal offence, and there's no loss to the OP, so thats a big 'so what'.

What you would or wouldn't have done is irrelevant in this scenario, why even raise it?

BJV

Op as many other posts have already said. Change the locks. What they did was wrong. No-one other than them will know if was an honest oversight, cheeky mistake or something else. But why risk it. Change the locks if you have not already.

jansus

At the very least the previous owners should have posted the key back through the letter box when leaving! If they still have it i would want to know why.