Ex tenant letters

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

  • jpkeates
    replied
    It's more of a question of understanding what's legal so people know what they're doing.
    Even if the practical consequences aren't in line with the law.

    It's not legal to travel at 31 miles an hour on a road with a 30 mile an hour speed limit.
    You'll probably never have an issue if you do go at 31 miles an hour, but that doesn't make it legal.

    Best to know the basic position, and then you can decide what you are going to do in real life understanding what you are doing.

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    It's a lot of nonsense LC.

    If T can't be arsed to deal with his post, neither can I. And if something arrives that shows he has been doing naughty things before he left, that's his lookout, if I happen to find out about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    A letter (that is the paper it is written on as opposed to the copyright of the text) belongs to the addressee as soon as it is posted.

    It is unwise to assume that anyone who fails to get his post redirected has waived all rights to it. You cannot rule out the possibility that the tenant did not consider it necessary to arrange for redirection because he believed he had informed everyone who needed to know of his change of address - or that he simply forgot or left it a bit late. Bear in mind also that you cannot redirect post indefinitely.

    In my opinion, the Theft Act 1968 covers Buzzard1994's point. I set out below extracts from sections 1-6; note the parts highlghted in red.

    1 Basic definition of theft.


    (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

    (2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

    (3) The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).


    3 “Appropriates”.


    (1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.

    (2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.

    6 “With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.


    (1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

    (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    Nah, it's not theft. It's finders keepers.

    If you find a 10p on the street, you are allowed to keep it, because the owner would not reasonably come back to look for it. If you find a £10, then you aren't allowed to keep it, as the owner would reasonably come back to look for it.

    Same with the letters... If the addressee had made any arrangement for redirection, then he wanted the letters. If he did not, then he did not want the letters.

    Leave a comment:


  • buzzard1994
    replied
    I thought for an action to be theft you had to intend to deprive the owner of their property. So opening a letter wouldnt qualify if you then send it to the owner (if you know where they are) or the sender as they presumably remain the owner if the letter has been delivered to the person for whom it was intended?

    Leave a comment:


  • security2
    replied
    Originally posted by Slatzuk View Post
    I opened mail from a former bad tenant mostly debt collection letters. I then tracked him down and physically handed all the opened mail to him. One of them being my default CCJ against him for outstanding rent.

    He went to the police and complained I'd been opening post. When a sergeant rang me to say I was breaking the law and should stop I asked him what law and quoted the Postal Services act referenced above to him. The two points I highlighted were "reasonable excuse" and mail has been delivered to address so no longer covered by the legislation. Sergeant blustered a bit and said no further action.

    A bit of instant karma followed. I asked the sergeant if the bad tenant was with him at the moment, he didn't answer but I suggested if he was he might ask how he got to the police station as one of the letters I'd opened was a notice that he had no insurance on his car.

    I heard later that his car had been seized the same day for lack of insurance.
    Brilliant!

    For what it's worth, I almost always return mail to sender. In most cases, they stop sending further mail (unless it's Virginia media, in which case the mail increases!).

    You have to remember that utility bills are the responsibility of the bill payer. If that's the tenant, or sub tenant, or whoever, is not your problem. Just call the utility company at the right time with an opening reading and from that point forward, it's your (or your new tenants) responsibility.

    The only letter I might have "lost" on the way to returning to sender was one for a parking fine for an ex-tenant that I had a deposit dispute with. Shame he didn't get the opportunity to pay it at the reduced price.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    As I see it, if someone else's mail comes into your possession and you hold onto it and do nothing with it you commit no crime. However, as soon as you perform an act which treats it as your own, such as throwing it away or opening it, you risk being guilty of theft.
    There's an essay question there.

    Who does the unoppened mail belong to?
    The sender or the intended recipient (or the delivery service or the bailee)?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Just because opening someone else's mail once delivered is not a crime under the Postal Services Act does not mean it is not a crime. The Theft Act 1968 springs to mind - see sections 1-6. As I see it, if someone else's mail comes into your possession and you hold onto it and do nothing with it you commit no crime. However, as soon as you perform an act which treats it as your own, such as throwing it away or opening it, you risk being guilty of theft.

    Opening someone's else's mail is a tort.

    All this talk about "Who will know?", "It fell open" and "You'll never get prosecuted" shows a gross disrepect for the rule of law.



    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    Originally posted by Slatzuk View Post
    I heard later that his car had been seized the same day for lack of insurance.
    That's funny.

    Reminds me of my tenant in the Bambi flat...https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/fo...-in-your-flat=

    After they left, a number of official letters fell open regarding T's husband driving without insurance, the court summons, the court verdict, and request for his driving licence to be endorsed. Finally one telling him that his licence was now suspended due to not having returned it. I can't imagine the trouble he got himself into with that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slatzuk
    replied
    I opened mail from a former bad tenant mostly debt collection letters. I then tracked him down and physically handed all the opened mail to him. One of them being my default CCJ against him for outstanding rent.

    He went to the police and complained I'd been opening post. When a sergeant rang me to say I was breaking the law and should stop I asked him what law and quoted the Postal Services act referenced above to him. The two points I highlighted were "reasonable excuse" and mail has been delivered to address so no longer covered by the legislation. Sergeant blustered a bit and said no further action.

    A bit of instant karma followed. I asked the sergeant if the bad tenant was with him at the moment, he didn't answer but I suggested if he was he might ask how he got to the police station as one of the letters I'd opened was a notice that he had no insurance on his car.

    I heard later that his car had been seized the same day for lack of insurance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handson
    replied
    I informed them about him. Changed it over to my name for the time being with closing meter readings. They said he had considerable debt.

    Leave a comment:


  • ash72
    replied
    Originally posted by Handson View Post

    I will give final readings today. I didn't have access that's why situation has got where it has.

    What I want to know is if somebody other than tenant assigned the bills to their own name but had no tenancy with me whose responsible. I have no forwarding address to speak of.

    If I was in your situation, I would just call the Utility company which the sub-tenant has taken the contract out on and tell the company you know nothing about this person as you didn't have a contract or were aware of him/her living or using the address, it would be for them to chase any funds owed, after all they would have done a credit check (even basic) on the person and would have got some details.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Opening someone else's post falls under the it's not legal but no one has ever heard of anyone ever getting into trouble for it category.

    Leave a comment:


  • HantsAgent
    replied
    I often open things I think are of importance to the property/landlord; utility bills, debt collectors, etc.

    Talking to these people and explaining what’s happened (tenant has left, they won’t get any joy by continuing to write to the property) is the best way of making it stop in my experience.

    I’ll leave others to debate the legalities of opening mail addressed to someone else but I really don’t see it as a big deal. “I’m terribly sorry, but the addressee’s name was obscured inside the window of the envelope and I assumed it was for me.”

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Sending the letters back is more effective at preventing bailiffs and repeat letters than opening them and then not doing anything.
    None of my tenants has ever reported a bailiff turning up for a previous tenant.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

  • Reply to Joint tenancy agreement, 1 tenant has already moved out
    by Yorkie2020
    Guess I've been very lucky this time. My niece has informed her partner that she is ending the tenancy and signing up for a new one in her name only and he is ok with it. She did point out that he will no longer be responsible for any more rent or bills when it's totally in her name.
    JPkeats,...
    27-10-2021, 02:02 AM
  • Joint tenancy agreement, 1 tenant has already moved out
    by Yorkie2020
    Good evening all,

    I wonder if I could get some advice on ending an AST tenancy in England.

    Originally a 6 month AST last Sept between my niece and her partner, I foolishly listed both on the AST as joint tenants and didn't list him as a permitted, there was no deposit paid....
    20-10-2021, 19:44 PM
  • Reply to Increasing rent
    by jpkeates
    There may be something on the NRLA website, but I don't know of a standard template.

    To be honest that clause doesn't seem to help you a lot, it stops you using a s13 notice (I'd wrongly assumed that because it said "may" you'd be able to) but doesn't actually help you with an...
    26-10-2021, 17:37 PM
  • Increasing rent
    by Berlingogirl
    Tenancy start date May 2020 in England. 6 month initial AST.
    My tenancy agreement says
    “The landlord may increase the rent after the first 52 weeks of the tenancy…..”
    Is there a specific form I should use?...
    26-10-2021, 13:33 PM
  • Reply to Increasing rent
    by Berlingogirl
    Thanks jpkeates, I looked at the form 13 but that’s for if you don’t have anything in your tenancy agreement with regard to a rent increase. Is there a pro forma for a rent increase if there is a condition in your TA?
    26-10-2021, 17:05 PM
  • Reply to Increasing rent
    by jpkeates
    If the tenancy is now an SPT, and you want to be ever so formal (and impose the increase without any agreement), search for form 13 (which is called something else on the government's tenancy forms page).

    Otherwise, you just need to get the tenant to agree and start paying the new rent...
    26-10-2021, 13:58 PM
  • Reply to Advanced rent and S21 Notices
    by jpkeates
    It is quite likely that the 2 additional months might be seen as a deposit, unless the tenancy agreement is very specific about the initial payment being for months 1, 5 and 6.

    If it is a deposit, you won't be able to use a s21 notice without returning it and the deposit will be unlawful...
    26-10-2021, 08:35 AM
  • Advanced rent and S21 Notices
    by Shorif908
    Hi All,

    I have recently had new tenants move in.
    the estate agent did the whole thing and put them in.

    The arrangement with rent payments was this. 6 months AST Tennants pay last 3 months rent in advance and then make 3 monthly payments in advance. Ie start of the month....
    26-10-2021, 08:06 AM
  • Reply to Advanced rent and S21 Notices
    by Lesney Park
    BUT to answer your question, yes the 3 months very much look like an unlawful deposit, being for a non-defined period (the last 3 months of a tenancy). If it is for a specific 3 months, its a bit lesss grey but then I'm wondering what you hope to achieve...
    26-10-2021, 08:35 AM
  • Reply to Advanced rent and S21 Notices
    by Lesney Park
    Never been shown previously

    Are you still using the same letting agents, did they come up with this "payment plan"?...
    26-10-2021, 08:33 AM
Working...
X