abandoned property left in your care

In a recent thread, that as far as I know has been locked, regarding the fate of some DUKWs, that were left in a farmers field, possibly with the agreement to leave them there having gone past the ageed timeframe for their removal, I posted to the effect that "the landowner had a duty of care to look after goods left on his land."

This suggestion was queried by various people, (well Steveo578 and Adrian Barrell at least) and I can no longer reply in that thread. So I hope the mods don't mind if I re-open the general dicussion to clarify that point. Also, since some of us let friends and aquaintances keep vehicles and/or equipment on our land, it is good to know what we are getting into and the legal implications of such friendly gestures actually are, if it all goes wrong and we want to end the arrangement.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/uncollected_goods.htm

Although not entirely a parallel, this page is worth a look.

As I read the "Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977", the person who finds himself looking after someone elses property, does have a duty of care and can be guilty of negligence so far as it results in damage to goods or to an interest in goods.

Someone finding himself with vehicles left in his field, even if there was an agreement to keep them there and that agreement has become time expired, still has a resposibility to safeguard those vehicles

This act does lay down a framework as to how such property must be treated and how it can be disposed of or sold, and how to get the proceeds of the sale (after legitimate expenses have been deducted), back to the original owner of that property.

In answer to a specific question asked in the locked thread, No, there is no period of time after which a farmer can automatically sell vehicles left in his field, but there is a procedure he has to follow to be able to legally dispose of those vehicles. Even if the farmer were to go through that process, the proceeds of scrapping the vehicles should go back to the original owner of the property, after any unpaid rent (if any was due) and expenses have been deducted. The farmer cannot legally profit from scrapping the vehicles, unless he has unpaid rent to recover, so it might not be worth his while trying to dispose of them unless he needs the space.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

Link to the actual legislation.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1977/cukpga_19770032_en_1

and related factsheet

http://www.tameside.gov.uk/tradingstandards/factsheets/31

And as I understand it, if a vehicle left on your land was still there at the end of an agreement to keep it there, and you followed the procedure within this act, could not get in contact with the owner, but still decided to sell or scrap the vehicles, then the original owner whose vehicles you sold (legally after following the correct procedure) can still claim the money you got from the sale back from you for a period of six years after the event, should he make a re-appearance.

Very interesting!! So the said owner of the vehicles could come back to the landlord ....... (fill in the blanks) if the owner has never been notified about removing them?

Christian

As I understand it, in general terms, goods, vehicles, whatever can only be disposed of if the procedure to notify the owner of the intention to sell has been followed correctly.

Should a land-owner get fed up with "abandoned vehicles" on his land and either sell or scrap them, however long they have lain there without contact from the original owner, if the landowner does not follow this procedure, then he is breaking the law.

If, in this case, you, as an innocent third party, are then unlucky enough to "buy" the vehicles from the landowner, unfortunately, they weren't his to sell, they still belong to the original owner, and you will loose out because you have paid for them, but they are not yours. Even though you have passed money to the land-owner, and taken the vehicles/ property whatever off his land, they still belong to the original owner, who can reclaim them at any time.

The title (ownership) of the goods and the right to sell or dispose of them, only passes from the original owner of the vehicles, to the landowner on which they stand, after the procedure has been followed in full.

• Make sure your notice clearly identifies you as the landlord and gives full contact details for yourself as landlord and include complete contact details.

 

• If the goods remain unclaimed after 3 months you can sell them to a buyer, who will receive good title to them. The original owner will therefore lose all rights to the goods.

 

• Once you have covered your expenses in this process and any rent arrears etc, any proceeds left over will belong to the original owner - your tenant, if they should turn up and claim within six years.

I dont think the buyer would lose what he has bought but the landlord will need to keep the proceeds for 6 years incase the original owner turns up:-D

quote from landlord site!

I dont think the buyer would lose what he has bought but the landlord will need to keep the proceeds for 6 years incase the original owner turns up:-D

 

quote from landlord site!

Agreed if the procedure has been followed, but if no notice was given to the original owner of the vehicles, he still remains the legal owner and can claim them back. Which might be interesting if they were scrapped!

But I want to keep this in terms of general principles, rather than trying to relate it to any specific situation.

And my primary point is that until the procedure is carried out in full, the landowner would have a duty to look after the vehicles and / or safeguard them for the original owner.

I think it will be a case of "Watch this space" for the next few months and see what the landlord does:cool2:

I think one thing that has been gained out of the DUCK:-D thread is some useful information has been found for all to benefit.

Thankyou for finding the info out:iloveyou:

Christian

Well unless told otherwise by another member, this is I believe the most relevant legislation to cover this situation.

So does this apply to armies who leave stuff everywhere on peoples land is it then the landowners to keep or sell on !!!!!!!

I think we are not on about armies leaving their gear but a case of landlord and tennant which is different.

Christian

We come across asimilar problem when vehicles are left with us that are beyond economic repair. The people dont pay their bill, even if its for an MOT, as its not worth their while. The problem most arose when scrap prices were at an all time low. At one point we had 3/4 vehicles left with us that the owners had no intention of collecting or paying for. We now have a clause which states that we can dispose of vehicles after 3 months with the costs being recouped from the sale of the vehicle.

We come across asimilar problem when vehicles are left with us that are beyond economic repair. The people dont pay their bill, even if its for an MOT, as its not worth their while. The problem most arose when scrap prices were at an all time low. At one point we had 3/4 vehicles left with us that the owners had no intention of collecting or paying for. We now have a clause which states that we can dispose of vehicles after 3 months with the costs being recouped from the sale of the vehicle.

The point is it isn't wait three months then you can sell. It is writing, by recorded delivery, to the owners saying where to collect the items, precisely how they can contact you, telling them that they have three months to get in contact then you are dispsing of their property. You need demonstrable proof that you made a serious attempt to get the owner to collect his property, before you can get rid of it.

You can only sell their stuff after you have made your best attempt to contact them, and then given them three months from making contact, in which to act.

So does this apply to armies who leave stuff everywhere on peoples land is it then the landowners to keep or sell on !!!!!!!

Er??? I am talking about law as it applies in England, Wales and N.I. (I don't know about Scotland where there are differences in law) as far as I am aware the Army doesn't have a habit of leaving its vehicles in peoples driveways or fields!

Agreed if the procedure has been followed, but if no notice was given to the original owner of the vehicles, he still remains the legal owner and can claim them back. Which might be interesting if they were scrapped!

I think in that case the owner'd be looking at suing for compensation for having HIS property destroyed by another. If it was something rare/useful/interesting (with evidence to prove it, obviously) it could get quite painful for the landowner!

Stone

Or if, to be more specific, a vehicle only good for breaking for spares were to be sold, without the statutary notice having been given, and the new owner refurbished parts removed from it and incorporated them into another restoration project vehicle, presumably the original owner could demand those components back (he still has legal title to them), thus rendering the the restored vehicle incomplete and unusable again!

Lets hope the vehicle owner doesn't die in the meantime. I can see that causing a real headache for the land owner.

The point you are missing is the landowner/Farmer is probably being threatened with prosecution by his local authority for storing scrap vehicles, deemed as waste, leaking oil and pollutents, on his agricultral land without a waste licence, and not complying with the criteria for storage of waste, ie, on a concrete base with oil and pollutent drain traps, The farmer is held resposible for clearing up his land. Gone will be the days when old vehicles are found on farms, this also applies to having a derilect or dismantled vehicle in your own garden/driveway if the council declare it as waste

Presumably if a vehicle was left on a farmers land, and the owner died, the vehicle's ownership is determined by inheretance law and any will that had been made. If the farmer tries to notify the owner of intention to sell, then presumably he has the responsibility of trying to find recipient of the gift.

Presumably if a vehicle was left on a farmers land, and the owner died, the vehicle's ownership is determined by inheretance law and any will that had been made. If the farmer tries to notify the owner of intention to sell, then presumably he has the responsibility of trying to find recipient of the gift.

But would the original agreement to store the vehicles then "die" with the death of the owner?

Should this thread have a disclaimer attached?

Understanding which Laws apply to any given situation can be difficult enough at times for the layman, but the interpretation of said laws is frought with difficulty, and is surely something best left to someone who is appropriately qualified.

As a discussion topic it is of course interesting, but I do hope nobody reads anything more definitive into any suggested interpretations seen here!

Do carry on.........:coffee:

Should this thread have a disclaimer attached?

 

Understanding which Laws apply to any given situation can be difficult enough at times for the layman, but the interpretation of said laws is frought with difficulty, and is surely something best left to someone who is appropriately qualified.

 

As a discussion topic it is of course interesting, but I do hope nobody reads anything more definitive into any suggested interpretations seen here!

 

Do carry on.........:coffee:

I have already given a disclaimer, repeatedly. (post #2, post#4 )I have already said that this is I understand it, and if anyone knows differently they should say so. (post #8)

The law I quote relates to the title of the property, ie who owns it. If the property is owned by a person, but is on someone elses land or in a house they own, then the only way the landowner/ landlord, can legally dispose of it it to tell the owner, (or whoever the title {ownership} has passed to of his intention to dispose of those goods in three months time, and to ask them to collect the goods. It is only after the three months notice has elapsed he can sell the goods.

It is not to do with agreements or how the goods came to be on someoneelses property, it is to do with the owner remaining the owner until he is asked to remove them, given time to do so, and he fails to remove them. The circumstances leading up to the point when the landowner wants rid, and any agreement made at the start of the goods being on the land is irrelevant, unless there is a clause in a legal agreement at the start of tenancy, or the start of storage agreement, as to what happens to goods remaining on the property at the end of the agreement.

If you read the very first link I posted, at the start of all this you will find this:-

"never rely totally on our standard answers and general content which relates primarily to England & Wales. Before taking action or not, always do your own research and seek appropriate professional advice with the full facts of the case and all documents to hand. " (post#1)

The only point I am trying to make, is to justify my original statement in 11 DUKWs thread, that the landowner had I duty of care to look after another persons goods left on his land.

I don't want to get drawn into what if's, and hyperthetical agruements. As I have said right from the outset, this is merely as I understand the law.

I myself was in the position of having goods left with me, for short term storage, "until I can work something else out", that where still there eight years later.

I sought advice from the CAB and they told me that I had a "duty of care" to look after the goods, and that I couldn't just dispose of them. (their words, not mine)

It is on the basis of that advice that I posted the comment I did on the 11 DUKW's thread.

That viewpoint was challenged, so I only seek to defend it, I have looked to the best of my ability as to what law covers this situation. It appears to be "Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977", and I am trying to show how I believe that relates to the discussion.

I am not recommending a course of action to anyone. I am just warning people who seem to think that if goods are left, seemingly abandoned on their land they can just scrap them or sell them, but trying instead to warn them that they have a duty to safeguard those goods, and have to try to contact the legal owner before they dispose of them. I cannot see how that advice is going to get anyone into trouble.

Disclaimer

Please note that any legal advice given or implied anywhere on this forum is the poster's (Members & HMVF Staff) own interpretation of the law & not necessarily correct. Proper legal advice should always be taken if in any doubt.

We have added this to the forum rules.

Please note that any legal advice given or implied anywhere on this forum is the poster's (Members & HMVF Staff) own interpretation of the law & not necessarily correct. Proper legal advice should always be taken if in any doubt.

Appologies if I did not make this clear.

Can we lock this thread Lee? Or can it be attached onto the tail end of the 11 DUKW's thread to which it relates and then locked?

Antar Mike

This suggestion was queried by various people, (well Steveo578 and Adrian Barrell at least)....

Mike- I am aware I am a bit long winded but what I said in my 2 posts on the Locked thread was in no way saying that a landowner does not has "a duty of care", what I said, giving an example, is that a landowner has legal redress in such a case to regain the “enjoyment” on his land. In the case I recounted that landowner took legal advice and was advised what action to take. Had the other party wanted to challenge it then he could have gone to court, either before or after the action, which in actuality he failed to do so, (I wonder why?) but I would be interested if you would tell me where what I recounted is at variance with the 1977 Act?

As N.O.S. sensibly said

Understanding which Laws apply to any given situation can be difficult enough at times for the layman, but the interpretation of said laws is fraught with difficulty, and is surely something best left to someone who is appropriately qualified.

 

Even a legal opinion is just that an opinion given by a legally qualified person but it is still an opinion until weighed by a judge or commissioner, in effect faced with this sort of situation a landowner must take legal advice.

Anyone who enters into a “casual” agreement with a friend or acquaintance may be running risks with his property, there are numerous sites and organisations that people can go to obtain legal enforceable agreements, for example loan agreements. Without a properly worded, witnesses and signed agreement (and note I did not say notarised) Courts and Tribunals rarely if ever support the agreement and will rarely support the aggrieved party (possibly this is because Courts are all legal people and therefore do not look well on amateurs.

There is also the matter raised by both Degsy in post #74 of the previous thread and Nick Johns post #17 on this site, that the environment agency has a finger in this pie. As I see it to comply with current regulations re storage of derelict vehicles the farmer/landowner would have to make a concrete hard standing with adequate interception drainage and may have to apply for an appropriate waste management certificate- if this is the case the landowner could reasonable apply for this expense to recouped from the other party.

Regards

Steve

Appologies if I did not make this clear.

Can we lock this thread Lee? Or can it be attached onto the tail end of the 11 DUKW's thread to which it relates and then locked?

Hi Mike,

it has nothing to do with the DUKW thread, that one has been put to bed.

since some of us let friends and aquaintances keep vehicles and/or equipment on our land, it is good to know what we are getting into and the legal implications of such friendly gestures actually are, if it all goes wrong and we want to end the arrangement.

 

 

Thought you wanted this to be a place for general advice on storage of equipment & your rights.

You complained the other day as I locked a thread as you weren't given the right to reply, that thread was going off course that is why it was locked, I can't see a problem here at the moment & we will keep an eye on it. Please keep it friendly chaps.

There may be members who see the law differently to you & may wish to reply.

Cheers Lee