Tenant of Leaseholder leaving property in common parts

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Tenant of Leaseholder leaving property in common parts

    I own the freehold of a small building (and a couple of the leases). One of the other leaseholders as let to a tenant who despite warning will not remove property (bicycles / push chairs) from common parts.

    The leaseholder (and therefore their tenant) does not have the right under the lease to store property in the common parts.

    I believe therefore that I am entitled to remove the bicycle.

    This seems drastic although as warnings are not doing the trick I wonder if anyone else has come across this and how they have handled it.

    When I remove the (expensive!) bike, can I just sell it for whatever price I can get or what?

    I fear this will end in a slanging match. The tenant is unreasonable. The leaseholder refuses to enforce or control them.

    (presumably I could also threaten to "forfeit" the lease?)

    Any thoughts gratefully received.

    #2
    Issue a tort notice and remove the bike when the time is up.

    Comment


      #3
      How and what is the cost please ?

      Comment


        #4
        https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/32

        Cost is the cost of the paper, the toner or ink and your time.

        If the bike is obstructing an escape route, you should move it to a nearby safe location, and notify that location to the owner.

        If you dispose of it, after they ignore the notice, you must handover the net proceeds of the sale, after storage costs and sale costs.

        However note that bicycles are serial numbered, and, even if you use the correct procedures, so you can't be accused of theft, any sale could be poisoned by reporting the cycle as stolen.

        You could threaten to forfeit the lease if you have such a clause in the lease. You could, presumably claim compensation for storage costs.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
          Issue a tort notice and remove the bike when the time is up.
          Not sure if that is appropriate. The person issuing the notice needs to be in possession of or in control of the bike.

          Comment


            #6
            It's trespassing on their property.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
              It's trespassing on their property.
              True, but is the bike is "in the possession or under the control of a bailee" as required by section 12 of Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977?

              Comment


                #8
                Thank you very much everyone. A threat of bike removal (more seriously expressed than before) seems to have done the trick. (I hope it lasts...)
                Thanks

                Comment


                  #9
                  The fact the goods, in this case, the bike, is on the property is enough to satisfy s12 1, c.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
                    The fact the goods, in this case, the bike, is on the property is enough to satisfy s12 1, c.
                    I am not sure it is.

                    Section 12 starts: "This section applies to goods in the possession or under the control of a bailee".

                    There are four key words:

                    "goods": Is the bike goods? Yes, because the Act defines goods as including all chattels personal other than things in action and money.

                    "possession": Is the landlord in possession of the bike? "Possession" is a very wide word and a bit of a slippery concept. I am having difficulty seeing how the landlord can be in possession of the bike in any meaningful way if the bike owner has free use of the bike. The landlord has no proprietary interest in the bike nor is it in his custody.

                    "control": Is the landlord in control of the bike? It is difficult to see how he is. Without removing the bike he cannot prevent the bike owner (and indeed others) from using it. He cannot take the bike away so as to have control of it because the Act gives him no power to do so. The control must exist before the section applies.

                    "bailee": Is the landlord a bailee? I do not think so. The bike has not been given into the landlord's custody by the bike owner for the landlord to do work on it or look after it. The landlord cannot be an involuntary bailee because a bailment requires the bailee to have physical possession of the thing in question.

                    However you look at it it seems that a condition for the section to apply is that the landlord must be exercising significant control over the bike.

                    I am not saying there is no remedy in law, just that it looks like it is not available under section 12. The position is not though clear cut and I can see a County Court judge finding for the landlord, but it would be interesting to see what the Court of Appeal would make of the situtation.

                    Comment

                    Latest Activity

                    Collapse

                    • Non carpeted flat in breach of lease
                      woodhar
                      Just due to exchange on a leasehold flat and in the terms of the lease I am supposed to have carpet. I have laminate floor throughout. Literally due to exchange and buyer is asking for 2,000 pounds for new carpet. Says she cannot purchase without carpet as I am in breach of my lease. Have said I...
                      25-06-2019, 14:17 PM
                    • Reply to Non carpeted flat in breach of lease
                      eagle2
                      You state that your lease requires you to have a carpet and if that is the case, it would be reasonable to sell the flat in a condition which complies with the lease. The purchaser cannot expect an expensive carpet or a brand new carpet, Your offer to fit a carpet or make an allowance seems to be reasonable...
                      26-06-2019, 05:20 AM
                    • Breach of covenant in share of freehold
                      barryz
                      Hello everyone,

                      I own a leasehld flat and share of freehold, split equally between 4 directors of management company.

                      I believe one of directors may have breached there lease but Im not sure the others will see it that way.

                      The articles state matters must be decided...
                      25-06-2019, 20:13 PM
                    • Reply to Breach of covenant in share of freehold
                      eagle2
                      You are asking two questions, 1 is there a breach and 2 what if anything should be done about it.

                      1 We cannot answer this question unless you state what you consider to be the breach of the lease and you let us know the actual wording of the lease. A breach is not determined by the freeholder...
                      26-06-2019, 05:03 AM
                    • Director discrimination possibly?
                      Stacker
                      A leaseholder is threatening bringing a discrimination case against company as they are the only flat who is not a Director and many directors have come and gone also a director is appointing directors as per the AOA and not holding any AGMs to endorse the appointments.There is no automatic right to...
                      22-06-2019, 20:14 PM
                    • Reply to Director discrimination possibly?
                      eagle2
                      The old directors appear to have sold their apartments and are no longer involved so I suggest that you concentrate on the new directors and provide them with a list of suggestions in order of priority and let them have a reasonable amount of time to comply with the request.
                      26-06-2019, 04:36 AM
                    • Sinking fund breach of covennat?
                      Stacker
                      The level of the sinking fund has never been agreed by the managing agent or the Directors at any AGM in respect of the accounting years ending December 2016 2017 2018 and 2019 as required by the Deeds of Covenant.
                      THE FIFTH SCHEDULE
                      10. To set aside(which setting aside shall be for...
                      16-06-2019, 19:27 PM
                    • Reply to Sinking fund breach of covennat?
                      eagle2
                      There was no tax advantage to be gained by not having a sinking fund, quite the opposite. Buy to let investors can deduct service charges from rental income so by reducing the service charges, the directors increased their personal tax liability.

                      You stated in #25 that the FTT had allowed...
                      26-06-2019, 04:15 AM
                    • Reply to Breach of covenant in share of freehold
                      leaseholder64
                      What I was getting at is that the freeholder does not have to enforce covenants and there is no come back for not doing so unless they are themselves breaching a covenant. If they don't covenant with you, as leaseholder, to enforce the covenant, they are doing nothing wrong by not enforcing it. Note...
                      25-06-2019, 23:47 PM
                    • Reply to Director discrimination possibly?
                      josepha333
                      Considering all posts you need to understand you have to move away from company law & AoA and look at your rights as a leaseholder. You have stated this leaseholder understands the lease and RICS Code of Practice, therefore concentrate on what is not being done that should be done under the terms...
                      25-06-2019, 22:26 PM
                    Working...
                    X