Bicycles removed by property manager without my knowledge

e19

Ectophile said:

bris said:

The property manager was trying to follow the abandoned property procedure. Sending the letters somewhat goes a long way to prove this so there is no case for theft and is a civil matter.

Whether the property manager followed the correct procedure is not for any of us to determine here as we don't have enough information but a court would decide if it was followed properly or not.

The abandoned property procedure requires sending two separate letters.  Then selling the goods at a fair price, and keeping the money to hand to the owner of the goods.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/32 

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to this! This is so useful and you have no idea how much this meant to me! I am someone with no legal background/ training, so initially, I feel quite intimidated reading the tort legislation! However, after reading it slowly for the 10th time (!) I finally start to get the gist of it.
If you are still following this post, would you mind confirming whether the two separate letters you mentioned, one is to notify me to remove the bikes, and the other is to notify me of their intention to sell the bikes?
Thank you!

eddddy

e19 said:

Ectophile said:

bris said:

The property manager was trying to follow the abandoned property procedure. Sending the letters somewhat goes a long way to prove this so there is no case for theft and is a civil matter.

Whether the property manager followed the correct procedure is not for any of us to determine here as we don't have enough information but a court would decide if it was followed properly or not.

The abandoned property procedure requires sending two separate letters.  Then selling the goods at a fair price, and keeping the money to hand to the owner of the goods.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/32 

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to this! This is so useful and you have no idea how much this meant to me! I am someone with no legal background/ training, so initially, I feel quite intimidated reading the tort legislation! However, after reading it slowly for the 10th time (!) I finally start to get the gist of it.
If you are still following this post, would you mind confirming whether the two separate letters you mentioned, one is to notify me to remove the bikes, and the other is to notify me of their intention to sell the bikes?
Thank you!

I think you might be heading in the wrong direction.

Based on your posts, it sounds like:

• You are a tenant
• Your landlord is a leaseholder
• The freeholder's agent (property manager) has removed and sold your bikes

So your landlord will have a binding legal agreement with the freeholder - i.e. a lease.

The lease might well say that the freeholder has the right to remove and dispose of bikes left in the courtyard - and your landlord agreed to this. (And your Landlord failed to tell you this.)

Therefore, essentially your landlord agreed that your bikes could be removed and sold.

If all the above is correct, you need to pursue your landlord (not the property manager) for damages, because he/she was negligent in not telling you about the courtyard rules.

pbartlett

There may well be something in the lease about removing property, who knows?

I would bet, however, that the lease doesn't isay can be removed without proper notification, sold without the owner's knowledge, and the proceeds pocketed.

eddddy

pbartlett said:

I would bet, however, that the lease doesn't isay can be removed without proper notification, sold without the owner's knowledge, and the proceeds pocketed.

I guess that's one way of 'spinning' what happened. But it's equally likely that the freeholder...

• Made reasonable attempts to contact the owner in advance (by attaching a label to the bike)
• Removed the bike and stored it for a reasonable period, waiting for the owner to make contact
• Ultimately, disposed of the bike
• (Maybe wrote to leaseholders in advance of this all happening - but the OP's landlord now denies it, to cover for their failure to pass the message on to the tenant.)

If the above was done, I think a court would say the freeholder acted reasonably.

If you were the freeholder of the building and there appeared to be abandoned bikes in your courtyard, how would you have dealt with it differently?

I guess the freeholder could have sent duplicate letters addressed to both the leaseholder and 'The Occupant' of each flat, which might have helped.

e19

eddddy said:

pbartlett said:

I would bet, however, that the lease doesn't isay can be removed without proper notification, sold without the owner's knowledge, and the proceeds pocketed.

I guess that's one way of 'spinning' what happened. But it's equally likely that the freeholder...

• Made reasonable attempts to contact the owner in advance (by attaching a label to the bike)
• Removed the bike and stored it for a reasonable period, waiting for the owner to make contact
• Ultimately, disposed of the bike
• (Maybe wrote to leaseholders in advance of this all happening - but the OP's landlord now denies it, to cover for their failure to pass the message on to the tenant.)

If the above was done, I think a court would say the freeholder acted reasonably.

If you were the freeholder of the building and there appeared to be abandoned bikes in your courtyard, how would you have dealt with it differently?

I guess the freeholder could have sent duplicate letters addressed to both the leaseholder and 'The Occupant' of each flat, which might have helped.

Thank you for your reply! Yes I was the tenant and my landlord is a leaseholder. The property manager said they did tag the bikes, and also sent out a letter to notify residents to claim ownership within a month. After that they asked the bike shop to take the bikes. The issue is, I did not receive such letter. Based on the Tort legislation aren't they supposed to take more action, i.e. need to send a second letter by registered post? I have checked with my landlord and she's not received any notification either (I understand normally the property manager would send emails to my landlord).

eddddy

e19 said:

eddddy said:

pbartlett said:

I would bet, however, that the lease doesn't isay can be removed without proper notification, sold without the owner's knowledge, and the proceeds pocketed.

I guess that's one way of 'spinning' what happened. But it's equally likely that the freeholder...

• Made reasonable attempts to contact the owner in advance (by attaching a label to the bike)
• Removed the bike and stored it for a reasonable period, waiting for the owner to make contact
• Ultimately, disposed of the bike
• (Maybe wrote to leaseholders in advance of this all happening - but the OP's landlord now denies it, to cover for their failure to pass the message on to the tenant.)

If the above was done, I think a court would say the freeholder acted reasonably.

If you were the freeholder of the building and there appeared to be abandoned bikes in your courtyard, how would you have dealt with it differently?

I guess the freeholder could have sent duplicate letters addressed to both the leaseholder and 'The Occupant' of each flat, which might have helped.

Thank you for your reply! Yes I was the tenant and my landlord is a leaseholder. The property manager said they did tag the bikes, and also sent out a letter to notify residents to claim ownership within a month. After that they asked the bike shop to take the bikes. The issue is, I did not receive such letter. Based on the Tort legislation aren't they supposed to take more action, i.e. need to send a second letter by registered post? I have checked with my landlord and she's not received any notification either (I understand normally the property manager would send emails to my landlord).

(As an aside, the property manager says they sent a letter / email to your landlord. Your landlord says they never received it. How do you know which one is lying / mistaken?)

As I say, it's very possible that the property manager was simply enforcing the terms of the lease by removing bikes. If so, they've done nothing wrong. (Second letters, registered post etc wouldn't be relevant.)

But if somebody (i.e. your landlord or the property manager) was negligent and owed you a legal duty of care, you might be able to sue them for negligence.

I'm not sure that the property manager owes you a legal duty of care - so you might not succeed  with suing them.

But your landlord probably owes you a legal duty of care - so that might be a potential option.  

But you would need to show that your landlord did not act reasonably, and you lost your bikes as a result.

If you're interested, you can google 'Tort of Negligence' for more info.

Ditzy_Mitzy

e19 said:

eddddy said:

pbartlett said:

I would bet, however, that the lease doesn't isay can be removed without proper notification, sold without the owner's knowledge, and the proceeds pocketed.

I guess that's one way of 'spinning' what happened. But it's equally likely that the freeholder...

• Made reasonable attempts to contact the owner in advance (by attaching a label to the bike)
• Removed the bike and stored it for a reasonable period, waiting for the owner to make contact
• Ultimately, disposed of the bike
• (Maybe wrote to leaseholders in advance of this all happening - but the OP's landlord now denies it, to cover for their failure to pass the message on to the tenant.)

If the above was done, I think a court would say the freeholder acted reasonably.

If you were the freeholder of the building and there appeared to be abandoned bikes in your courtyard, how would you have dealt with it differently?

I guess the freeholder could have sent duplicate letters addressed to both the leaseholder and 'The Occupant' of each flat, which might have helped.

Thank you for your reply! Yes I was the tenant and my landlord is a leaseholder. The property manager said they did tag the bikes, and also sent out a letter to notify residents to claim ownership within a month. After that they asked the bike shop to take the bikes. The issue is, I did not receive such letter. Based on the Tort legislation aren't they supposed to take more action, i.e. need to send a second letter by registered post? I have checked with my landlord and she's not received any notification either (I understand normally the property manager would send emails to my landlord).

The issue, as I see it, is that the part of the Interference with Goods Act to which you refer, Schedule 2, only relates to Section 12, Bailee's power of sale.  A bailee, someone in possession of a bailor's goods as part of a bailment, can sell said goods if certain conditions are satisfied.  
A bailment is an agreement for a bailee, a third party, to take possession of a bailor's goods for a temporary period.  Simply put: someone who leaves a watch with a jeweller for repair is a bailor, the jeweller is the bailee.  
The problem here is that the freeholder, who took away the bicycles, is not a 'bailee'.  You did not agree that he would take possession of the goods.  Instead, possession was taken without your knowledge.
What you need to look at is the lease.  You will have agreed to various conditions regarding the use of the bicycle parking area.  These conditions take precedence and may well allow the freeholder to act in the way he did.  

eddddy

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

What you need to look at is the lease.  You will have agreed to various conditions regarding the use of the bicycle parking area.  These conditions take precedence and may well allow the freeholder to act in the way he did.  

Yes - except that the OP isn't the leaseholder. The OP is a sub-tenant of the leaseholder.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the leaseholder was 'negligent' and didn't tell the OP about the 'various conditions regarding the use of the bicycle parking area' (or incorporate them into the OP's AST).  So the OP never agreed to those conditions.

Hence why the OP might consider claiming against the leaseholder (i.e. the OP's landlord) for negligence.


But it all depends on many precise facts, which the OP would have to investigate.