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


                      #11
                      Thanks for all comments (historical thread here which I have just stumbled across again!). In end we instructed solicitors and, for a modest fee, a "solicitors letter" (threatening application to a tribunal for a determination that the leaseholder was in breach of covenant, potentially leading to a s146 LPA notice, and potentially ultimately leading to forfeiture!) did the trick. Leaseholder then made sure the tenant behaved.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        TheManOnTheBus - how modest was the fee? Thanks

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by TheManOnTheBus View Post
                          Thanks for all comments (historical thread here which I have just stumbled across again!). In end we instructed solicitors and, for a modest fee, a "solicitors letter" (threatening application to a tribunal for a determination that the leaseholder was in breach of covenant, potentially leading to a s146 LPA notice, and potentially ultimately leading to forfeiture!) did the trick. Leaseholder then made sure the tenant behaved.
                          Thanks for updating everyone

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Anna1985 View Post
                            TheManOnTheBus - how modest was the fee? Thanks
                            Just short of £400 - but I set it out carefully for them so it was less than 2 hours work.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              TheManOnTheBus , thank you. I still find it absolutely ridiculous that you need to go to solicitor to point out the bloody obvious

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              • Reply to Freeholder/Agent Demanding Money for Repairs
                                by eagle2
                                It makes you wonder why any freeholder should comply with s20 at all. As you say, it can wait to see if any leaseholder challenges the costs. It does not even need to explain why it did not comply with s20, the only consideration appears to be whether or not the leaseholders suffered any financial prejudice,...
                                23-10-2021, 06:34 AM
                              • Freeholder/Agent Demanding Money for Repairs
                                by SSLA91
                                Hi all,

                                Long time lurker of this forum and recent new member. Have always found the forum incredibly helpful so thank you! Have now got an issue with our freeholder that I could use some specific advice on (have tried searching for similar posts but to no avail).

                                We have recently...
                                20-10-2021, 20:28 PM
                              • Reply to Section 20 notice
                                by Starlane
                                Hi Macromia thank you as always for your helpful and sensible input.. one building is saying one thing and another building the other, the usual chinese whispers so I took the bull by the horns and spoke to everyone and I am almost there apart from a Director who wants to do their own thing ( not being...
                                22-10-2021, 20:57 PM
                              • Section 20 notice
                                by Starlane
                                Hello I would welcome input on the following:
                                Two roofs feed into a valley, the valley is in need of repair, this is a shared responsibility and therefore a shared cost. so how do we issue a section 20 notice when really we need the consent and agreement from two different buildings/landlords...
                                22-10-2021, 19:09 PM
                              • Reply to Share of freehold questions - confused
                                by Starlane
                                Agree thank you...
                                22-10-2021, 20:52 PM
                              • Share of freehold questions - confused
                                by sixunforced
                                Not sure if this is the right place for this query but anyway, I'm a first time buyer and have been searching for a property for like two years now (not continuously but on and off and obv covid halted my search for a while). I found a really nice 2 bedroom flat for under £320,000 in a block of around...
                                18-11-2020, 21:19 PM
                              • Reply to Section 20 notice
                                by Macromia
                                Assuming that the two freeholders have agreed that they will work together and share the costs, they jointly agree what needs to be communicated to the leaseholders and then each freeholder writes to the leaseholders in their building.
                                22-10-2021, 20:16 PM
                              • Freeholder threatening to cut water off
                                by Disraeli-LLH
                                I was hoping you would be able to help. We own a ground floor flat LLH(970 yrs remaining). The freeholder owns the house and lets the flat upstairs on an AST.

                                The freeholder currently undertaking works including replumbing. We have been on a shared water supply and we connect through their...
                                20-10-2021, 15:35 PM
                              • Reply to Freeholder threatening to cut water off
                                by Macromia
                                This is possibly by far the most important consideration, in my opinion.
                                If the OP's lease doesn't allow 'improvements' to be charged to service charges, the freeholder cannot require them to contribute anything towards the costs, and would therefore be something that they would have had no choice...
                                22-10-2021, 20:08 PM
                              • Reply to Freeholder/Agent Demanding Money for Repairs
                                by Macromia
                                Possibly...

                                Although when my freeholder applied for dispensation a while back (arguing that the proposed work had to be carried out as a matter of urgency) they were granted dispensation with the First Tier Tribunal commenting that the 2013 Supreme Court Case of Daejan versus Benson meant...
                                22-10-2021, 19:51 PM
                              Working...
                              X