Landlord cleared out personal belongings

KatrinaWaves

As already stated it’s a furnished let. The furniture did not belong to the tenant, all valuables were taken (again perhaps suggesting an abandonment)

it will be for a court to decide if that’s the way the OP wants to play it. I don’t see a court awarding thousands for clothing and paperwork and soft furnishings, but only a judge can say for sure. 

AdrianC

NewShadow said:

Cashmere v Walsh, Downing & Veale: the value of the tenant's property was set at £6,515, plus an amount of £47,000 under s.27 and s.28 Housing Act 1988 as it was deemed by the court the true reason for the illegal eviction was the landlords desire to sell the property with vacant possession... 

It would require someone versed with all of the relevant information and experience in the field to determine the prospects of this particular case, but it's not unreasonable to think a court may award an amount for damages in excess of the nominal value of the items in question given the circumstances thus stated. 

Except for the minor detail that this wasn't somebody who was intending to remain in residence for the foreseeable, and was evicted because the landlord wanted possession. This was a tenant who was never personally going to return to the property, and where notice had already been given. It just hadn't expired... yet... and the tenant's representatives (with valid PoA) hadn't finished clearing the remainder of what they freely admit was not valuable. A profuse apology and refund of the last month's rent would not be unfair restitution.

MoneySeeker1

Can't see one months rent covering a womans clothing. Thinking of where a one bedroom flat's rent would be, say, £700 a month and I personally would need more like a year's rent to cover my clothes and I'd hazard a quick guess at more like £10,000 to cover the average womans clothes (unless she has a VERY limited amount of clothes and they are all from somewhere like Primark). But the average woman and with her clothes coming from standard level places (like Marks & Spencers and John Lewis) and I'm not sure £10,000 would cover it.

Could be worth looking up what an insurance company would reckon the average middle class womans wardrobe of clothes costs if there was a house fire and they had to cover total wardrobe replacement at "new for old" levels.

EDIT; A very quick google on that brought up 2013 figures for average British womans clothing - with a reference to www.confused.com reckoning it was £4,000. Sounds pretty modest to me - when I personally (as someone on low income) go "3 new jumpers I bought recently = £300 each, so that's £900 to start with and so on".

Takmon

MoneySeeker1 said:

Can't see one months rent covering a womans clothing. Thinking of where a one bedroom flat's rent would be, say, £700 a month and I personally would need more like a year's rent to cover my clothes and I'd hazard a quick guess at more like £10,000 to cover the average womans clothes (unless she has a VERY limited amount of clothes and they are all from somewhere like Primark). But the average woman and with her clothes coming from standard level places (like Marks & Spencers and John Lewis) and I'm not sure £10,000 would cover it.

Could be worth looking up what an insurance company would reckon the average middle class womans wardrobe of clothes costs if there was a house fire and they had to cover total wardrobe replacement at "new for old" levels.

EDIT; A very quick google on that brought up 2013 figures for average British womans clothing - with a reference to www.confused.com reckoning it was £4,000. Sounds pretty modest to me - when I personally (as someone on low income) go "3 new jumpers I bought recently = £300 each, so that's £900 to start with and so on".

Your on a low income and you buy £300 jumpers? I don't know whether or not to take your posts seriously with the kind of money your saying standard clothes cost...

AdrianC

MoneySeeker1 said:

Can't see one months rent covering a womans clothing. 

Except you're forgetting that this is a woman who hasn't lived in the property recently, and is in poor enough health that she can no longer live independently. She already has access to all the clothing she requires for daily life - after all, she's been wearing something daily for the month and a half or more that she's been in the care home since leaving hospital...

Much of her old clothing would almost certainly have been unsuitable for care home wear, anyway. I presume you've never moved a parent into care...?

when I personally (as someone on low income) go "3 new jumpers I bought recently = £300 each, so that's £900 to start with and so on".

Don't be ridiculous... Last item of clothing I bought that was even approaching three figures was substantially less than that - and that was a business suit. That apart...

KatrinaWaves

Low income and spending a grand on three new jumpers? Okay let me get into that low income please... 

theartfullodger

Report theft to Police & get CRN. Aunt (through your LPA..) should take court action over financial losses - LBA then MCoL, see

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

Which country (NI, Wales etc..) is this in? In some sensible  countries the landlord could be disbarred from renting out properties.

sleepymans

You could check to see if the lady had household insurance with legal cover and if so I would go down the legal route for illegal eviction as well as compensation/damages for the items lost. Also an element of damages for distress under the circumstances. I’d go for local publicity too. The LL doesn’t deserve decent tenants in future!
No way would I think it fair for her to have to claim off her own insurance! Outrageous situation, I’d be furious if she were someone close to me. 

Good luck

MoneySeeker1

AdrianC said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

Can't see one months rent covering a womans clothing. 

Except you're forgetting that this is a woman who hasn't lived in the property recently, and is in poor enough health that she can no longer live independently. She already has access to all the clothing she requires for daily life - after all, she's been wearing something daily for the month and a half or more that she's been in the care home since leaving hospital...

Much of her old clothing would almost certainly have been unsuitable for care home wear, anyway. I presume you've never moved a parent into care...?

when I personally (as someone on low income) go "3 new jumpers I bought recently = £300 each, so that's £900 to start with and so on".

Don't be ridiculous... Last item of clothing I bought that was even approaching three figures was substantially less than that - and that was a business suit. That apart...

Wrong presumption in the event. One parent is about to go into care and I would be surprised if the other one doesnt land up in care (and I remember her coming back and reporting she'd just bought a Jaegar coat in a sale more than once - cue for £300/£400). So some people do buy clothes that are classic/reasonable quality/meant to last some time (rather than lots of cheap ones only designed to be worn a few times) - and why wouldnt they still want them if going into a care home?

NewShadow

AdrianC said:

NewShadow said:

Cashmere v Walsh, Downing & Veale: the value of the tenant's property was set at £6,515, plus an amount of £47,000 under s.27 and s.28 Housing Act 1988 as it was deemed by the court the true reason for the illegal eviction was the landlords desire to sell the property with vacant possession... 

It would require someone versed with all of the relevant information and experience in the field to determine the prospects of this particular case, but it's not unreasonable to think a court may award an amount for damages in excess of the nominal value of the items in question given the circumstances thus stated. 

Except for the minor detail that this wasn't somebody who was intending to remain in residence for the foreseeable, and was evicted because the landlord wanted possession. This was a tenant who was never personally going to return to the property, and where notice had already been given. It just hadn't expired... yet... and the tenant's representatives (with valid PoA) hadn't finished clearing the remainder of what they freely admit was not valuable. A profuse apology and refund of the last month's rent would not be unfair restitution.

It could still be considered illegal eviction given the tenancy was still in place and was terminated 'out of time' by the landlord - the tenant had the right to occupy the property until the end of the tenancy and to use the property to store their belonging until the end of the tenancy, both rights violated by the actions of the landlord. 

We're talking: 

• trespass; 
• possible illegal eviction, or at least critical breach of the tenancy agreement; and
• conversion of goods.

As I referenced above, the question of 'aggravated damages' vs 'compensation' would depend on the case presented and who the judge was most sympathetic towards on the day... 

OP - just to check, because I'm cynical... have you checked the sold listings on eBay for any of the missing items? I'm thinking 'paintings' and 'lamps'. You might also want to check the local charity shops - I only suggest this as skips are expensive.