Here is a question to the blog clinic from John who is a landlord:
One of my tenants left the house after receiving a Section 21. Unfortunately he left behind a car (parked on our drive) and loads of clutter and working goods in our garage.
We signed a document where we both agreed that he would collect his possessions within a month, but he failed to do so.
What shall I do with his goods (probably worth around 300 pound) and mainly with his car?
Answer:
No doubt readers will correct me if I am wrong, but I think you can get the Local Authority to remove the car if it has been abandoned. Or is that just if it has been left on the highway?
The general situation with goods left behind is as follows.
When someone leaves things in your possession, as they are not yours, you do not have the legal right to sell them or dispose of them. You are in the position of what lawyers call an ‘involuntary bailee’.
However it is unfair for you to be stuck with these things forever, so the law sets out a procedure for you to follow in the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.
Under s12 of this act, you need to write to them giving reasonable notice that you intend to sell the goods. The details of the letter are set out in schedule 1 – you have to say where the goods are stored, what they are and give a (reasonable) period of time during which they need to collect them.
Note that the letter will need to be sent by recorded delivery or registered post. The act came in before we had texts or emails so they will not count.
If you do not know the address of the owner of the goods you do not have to send the letter so long as you can prove that you have taken ‘reasonable steps’ to find them.
So far as any proceeds of sale are concerned, this belongs to the tenant not to you so you will need to give it to him, less any reasonable costs of sale.
Note that members of my Landlord Law service will find a letter that they can use on the site.
Tessa
Interested in your comment re recorded delivery etc and Statutes pre-dating technology.
In your view does the need for notice to be in writing post 1996 Houising Act mean an email from a tenant to a Landlord can be refused, as ‘in writing’ means exactly that, a signed letter?
I ask becuase I have always thought so, but recently was advised on good authority that email would be accpeted by the Courts as due notice. Aftyer all these days when did the average tenant last write a handwritten or even typed letter?
I think in the case of tenant to landlord an email would suffice, though in this case of course it is LL to T.
In the absence of any other worthwhile address send it to the property address if the tenant did a runner – not LL fault tenant is not there to sign for it.
Sorry meant to add yes local authority will only remove from the highway and only on private land if posing a danger e.g. it was sticking out between drive and road and bloicking pavement for prams and pedestrians etc
I think you need to be careful here is NOT using recorded delivery / registered post as the statute does specifically say that. Its not like it just says the notice has to be in writing – which can include emails and texts (I think).
So recorded delivery is necessary. But it may be a good idea to ALSO send it by post, email whatever. The more ways you send it the less chance the tenant has to say he did not receive it and be believed …
So what happens when the tenant does not accept delivery of the recorded or registered delivery – which has to state sender’s name on the reverse – as if it HAS to be served that way then service will fail.
Hence why if that attempt has been made I doubt a Court would demand an already frustrated procedure be repeated.
The section says
The notice shall be in writing and shall be sent by post in a registered letter, or by the recorded delivery service.
It does not say anything about accepting delivery.
I assume that provided you can prove that it was sent – the fact that the tenant refuses delivery should not prejudice things for you.
Sorry Tessa but that is not correct there was a high profile case a few years ago dealing with a proposed rent increase on a commercial lease where the tenant returned their objection to the increase by registered mail which was not signed for at the Landlord’s office ans 3 or 4 weeks later found it’s way back unopened – and hence not served – to the tenant.
The increased rent was held to apply.
General legal comment was so would the principle to residential lettings. Recorded or registerd is now archaic and in my view potentially a minefield.
I agree that its old fashioned and out of date – that is a problem with much of our law – it is out of step with modern technology.