antarmike Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) I actually posted thus in the 11 DUKW thread:- Quote antarmike" Never, if he has agreed to let someone put them there, then he has a duty of care to look after them for that person, as if they were his own. He cannot dispose of them, sell them, or scrap them. The Law says he has to continue to look after them, for that person, to the best of his ability. (or so I understand it, personal viewpoint expressed here )" Unquote. If that isn't a disclaimer I don't know what it is. To this Adrian Barrell replied:- "In either case I fail to see how there would be a duty upon the land owner to take care of the vehicles. The best he could be expected to do would be to watch them slowly deteriorate!" I accept your right, lee, not to see it as part of that thread, I however see that it is, and that the thread was locked prematurely, but your the boss... Edited November 29, 2009 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 .I accept your right, lee not to see it as part of that thread, I however see that it is, and that the thread was locked prematuley, but your the boss... We will no longer discuss on the forum why certain actions were taken by the Mod team, if you have a problem as why we take certain action then please PM us. Not sure if you've noticed Mike but Jack's the Boss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) 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 That will be my misunderstanding then. When you said "" Quote Antarmike" .. Again a personal viewpoint, I tended to believe the same as antarmike until I was corrected by a friend of mine..." I thought you were discounting the whole of what I said. The problem being that you posted "quote Antarmike" without actually posting my words or which particular bit of what I had said, you did not agree with. I hope you can see now why this could be interpreted by me as being a denial of a duty of care. Edited November 29, 2009 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) We will no longer discuss on the forum why certain actions were taken by the Mod team, if you have a problem as why we take certain action then please PM us. Not sure if you've noticed Mike but Jack's the Boss... I was using the "Royal we" and by you I of course meant the whole team. I don't have a problem... I understand your point, and the quote from my first post, where I say that I want to keep things general, but equally you could have chosen to focus on the following introduction to my post Quote antarmike "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." Unquote. Edited November 29, 2009 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 I am off to drill and rivet on some Explorer brake linings. That might be a bit more fun. See you later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 My query resulted from the statement ''a duty of care to look after them''. This implied to me the 'landlord' would have a responsibility to look after and hence take care of and as an extension, protect from deterioration of the goods. I do not believe that is true, either in the case of the DUKWs or any other. The landlord is only being paid to store the goods (assuming that is actually the case), he has no duty to do more than that. I did not query the point made about disposal. Any other requirements placed upon the landlord would be wholly unreasonable and I believe, in this case totally inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Antarmike That will be my misunderstanding then. When you said "" Quote Antarmike Mike Sorry about that, bit new to thread controls I was trying to highlight your posting name as I was responding specifically to your post, I wont do it again. regards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpowder44 Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 You only have to watch the program, A Life of Grime, to see the houses and yards being totally cleared of goods and chattles left behind or dumped. Nowhere has it being said on the program that the council contacted the people that left the "rubbish" behind to give them fair warning of their destruction. I would have thought that no legal advice or quotations should be on this forum. The only place to obtain legal advice is through a solicitor and not from some Barrack room lawyer on here. John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 I would have thought that no legal advice or quotations should be on this forum. The only place to obtain legal advice is through a solicitor and not from some Barrack room lawyer on here. John. I think that is pretty sound advice alround. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Adrian Just to back up you point on the limitations of Duty of Care, it does not extend to acts of Third Parties, so if some-one vandalised,stole or arsoned the property there is no Duty of Care requiring the landowner to compensate the property owner, unless there is a specific contract in place, for example the landowner is acting as a storage depot and part of the "rent" is an insurance. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honeileen Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 I think we can safely say that the information gained on this thread has shown us all how delicate the situation is between landlord and tennant. Yes you are right to seek legal advice from a lawyer but NO BARRACKROOM LAWYERS are giving any here. we are just talking about a situation. Christian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Blackpowder44 The only place to obtain legal advice is through a solicitor and not from some Barrack room lawyer on here. I am a Barrackroom Lawyer:) I always had a copy of QRegs to hand:) but seriously I and others have said in various posts on the thread- take legal advice. With regard to Life of Grim/ Grim Busters, Local Authorities carry out legal action before clearing properties as should anyone buying a "derelict" property it may inconvenient but it is better to avoid problems. Apart from that most programme makers have to ensure they make sure releases are properly obtained as these programmes are not News programmes. It is one of the reasons that residents feel that LAs etc are not acting quickly enough, however sometimes authorities are not as pro-active as they should be, but they are damned either way, one side may say "they fail to make sufficient effort to both clear and or find owner/beneficeries," the other side is "they are wasting public money". Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 My query resulted from the statement ''a duty of care to look after them''. This implied to me the 'landlord' would have a responsibility to look after and hence take care of and as an extension, protect from deterioration of the goods. I do not believe that is true, either in the case of the DUKWs or any other. The landlord is only being paid to store the goods (assuming that is actually the case), he has no duty to do more than that. I did not query the point made about disposal. Any other requirements placed upon the landlord would be wholly unreasonable and I believe, in this case totally inappropriate. My thinking was that if the vehicles in question where, say classic cars, not DUKW,s the farmer should not start using the area of his land where they stand for grazing his cattle, where his actions can reasonably be expected to result in cows leaning and stratching themselves on the cars, denting and bending panels. I do not suggest that he should move the vehicles into a barn, and sheet them over. If a tenant leaves goods behind after vacating a property, the Landlord should not move those goods out of the house and into the open, where rain and water are likely to damage them. He has to move them to some form of dry storage until the owners can be contacted. If cars are left at a garage for repair and are not collected, the garage owner should not lean panels against them to spray paint, risking overspary onto those cars. If parts have been stored in a locked barn, he should not move them out into an unsecure area where theft is likely.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 I agree Mike but none of those situations apply in the case at hand. Does the landowner have a duty of care to look after the DUKWs that have been left on his land? Beyond ensureing that he causes no further damage or disposes of them without following procedure, I cannot see how he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) I agree Mike but none of those situations apply in the case at hand. Does the landowner have a duty of care to look after the DUKWs that have been left on his land? Beyond ensureing that he causes no further damage or disposes of them without following procedure, I cannot see how he does. My point was in answer to the question, Quote loggyDriver "If they have been left on this farm for years, then how long do they remain their before the farmer can claim ownership?" My answer was "never, he has a duty of care to look after them for the owner" My saying that he had a duty of care to look after them for the owner only applied to not selling them to a scrap dealer, or other third party. If I am forced into being very specific, maybe the duty of care in this case ought to include not inviting people onto his land to look at someone elses property, and indicating that the vehicles are to go for scrap. Depending on the morals of the person he invites onto his land, which he cannot know, this could lead to problems because he is sowing seeds in their mind that he doesn't want the vehicles, he is giving no indication that the vehicles do not belong to him and he has no right to decide their fate, he is also indicating they are not seen as valuable to him, and all this might entice someone to come back on a dark night with spanners in hand, to see what they can grab before the scrap man cometh...Not wanting to see usable parts get melted down. His duty of care could possibly be seen as telling anybody who wants to look at them. "Sorry, they are not mine, they belong to someone else, and they are not for sale." For this is his best chance of stopping them being vandalised or stripped under the cover of darkness. I wish to make it clear this is a purely hyperthetical situation, and I am making no suggestion whatsover, that any contributor to this board , who may have viewed the vehicles, would behave in this way. I think I have said all I have to say, so if anyone wants to take issue with this please PM me, as we seem to be going deeper into specifics than was ever my intention, and people are reading far more into my initial post, tham I ever intended to say. Edited November 29, 2009 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 If a vehicle was just left & no rent was being paid & you had no contact from the owner wouldn't the vehicle then be classed as abandoned?? if so from reading this if the vehicle has been abandoned the council has power to remove it from private land.. probaly not but that's how it can be read... http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/WhereYouLive/Streetcleaninglitterandillegaldumping/DG_4001703 Local councils are responsible for the removal of abandoned vehicles, whether on private land or the public highway. However, the procedure for this may vary from council to council. Also, find out how you can safely and legally dispose of your vehicle when you no longer need it. What the local council can do The council will investigate whether the vehicle has been abandoned and will check to see whether it has been stolen or involved in an accident. If the vehicle has been abandoned on a road, including private roads and estates, the council will remove the vehicle. If the vehicle is on private land, the council will serve a 15 day notice of removal on the owner/occupier. If the vehicle is of no value, the council can dispose of it immediately. If it’s considered to be of some value, the council will send a written notice of destruction to the owner. If the vehicle is unclaimed the council can dispose of it. Tracing vehicle ownership The council will also work with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to trace vehicle ownership and impose fines on people who have abandoned a vehicle. Some councils have also been given authority to dispose of untaxed vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) If a person was given permission to leave something on someone elses land, and that was the extent of the agreement, then how often he visits those vehicles may not come into it? If he was given permission to leave them, it is up to him to decide when to come back. Abandonment is surely just fly-tipping a vehicle. It is finding a piece of land and leaving a vehicle there with no agreement to do so. The crunch is whether the landowner has tried, and failed to contact the owner. If he is merely fed up with what is on his land, and he has made no attempt at contact then the vehicles are I suggest not abandoned. We do not know enough about the history and interactions between Landowner and vehicle owner in this case to reach any conclusion whatsoever. Edited November 29, 2009 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Antarmike I agree the Direct Govt DG 4001/703 (guidance) are primarily for the removal of vehicle deliberately abandoned by people too lazy or stupid to phone a scrappy- most still recover for scrap without charge. The Council don't normally assist a landlord in removing vehicles from private property unless there is special circumstances for example it was abandoned overnight, or abandoned by a former tenant owner and constitutes a real substancial threat of fire, polution hazzard or danger to children. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 We do not know enough about the history and interactions between Landowner and vehicle owner in this case to reach any conclusion whatsoever. We are not supposed to be talking about any particular vehicle/owner, that thread was closed, lets stick to hypotheticals. I do know the full details of the other matter now as the owner has contacted me but would be wrong to divulge a private message. If he wishes the info provide to me put in the thread then I will update it for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) We are not supposed to be talking about any particular vehicle/owner, that thread was closed, lets stick to hypotheticals. I have been trying to stay in general terms, but others keep bringing it back.... I thought we were keeping it general, but it is hard to reply to something like this in general terms I agree Mike but none of those situations apply in the case at hand. Others apart from me appear to regard this AS RELATED to the previous 11 DUKW's thread. I am trying to end this because I think I have nothing more to say. I think I have said all I have to say, so if anyone wants to take issue with this please PM me, as we seem to be going deeper into specifics than was ever my intention, and people are reading far more into my initial post, than I ever intended to say. Edited December 1, 2009 by antarmike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john fox Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 the 'landlord' would have a responsibility to look after and hence take care of and as an extension, protect from deterioration of the goods. I do not believe that is true, either in the case of the DUKWs or any other. The landlord is only being paid to store the goods (assuming that is actually the case), he has no duty to do more than that. Speaking as a landlord who has experience dealing with adandoned goods left by tenants, then the duty of care means that the tenant's property cannot simply be left outside the back door exposed to the rain. So actually you do have a duty to protect. But that is not the same as protecting from time related decay, eg perishable food left behind does not have to be replaced by the LL if the tenant reclaims it before the 3 months is up. You would however be expected to store tenants property in, for example, a dry loft to protect them = provided they do not also require to be in a temperature controlled environment. Ie. you must take "reasonable" steps to maintain the same conditions of storage as they were left in. You cannot put them in a damp environment (say a derelict garden shed) and then present the (reclaiming) tenant with their property now riddled with mould I would think in the case of vehicles, if the owner had originally put a tarp on them their original state was "tarp protected", clearly in that case however condensation will mean that they will eventually decay through rusting. Does that mean you have to replace the tarp when it wears out? I do not know, but if you did then that is a legitimate cost/charge against the eventual sale proceeds note my use of deterioriation as distinct from decay is my interpretation, not a legal definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) I have been trying to stay in general terms, but others keep bringing it back....I thought we were keeping it general, but it is hard to reply to something like this in general terms Others apart from me appear to regard this AS RELATED to the previous 11 DUKW's thread. I am trying to end this because I think I have nothing more to say. Well as you started this thread with 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. It's hard to see what the point is anymore! Edited December 4, 2009 by Marmite!! Quote tags added Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rambo1969 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 I think, ultimatley, it boils down to due care and dilegence. If someone stored something with me, I would send them 3 letters, royal mail special service and post a notice on what was being stored. If it went to court, I think the law may be on my side. Can of worms though....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts