Landlors Disposal of tenants possessions

[atticus]

Those timings do not look good from your point of view. Did you know about those e-mails? If not, why not?

[jinkazama13]

The email communication ( only 1 ) was not sent to me and because it said "may" be removed my bf never told me.

[atticus]

You and your bf need to talk.

[theycantdothat]

What did the email say exacty?

[jinkazama13]

The email read -

Dear Resident

Please see attached notice regarding unregistered bicycles at [property address]. Please also find attached bicycle registration form.

Kind regards


There were two PDF's attached, one was the registration form and the other was said word for word "Bikes parked on these racks must be registered and have a "name of development" tag attached.Any unregistered bikes without a valid "name of development" tag may be removed without prior notice. To register to use the bike racks, please contact "building managers contact details".

[dls]

The true answer (or part of it) lies in the terms of the lease. That lease gives some rights to certain people over specified parts of the estate.
You might be a person granted those rights and you might not.
It may also allow for the creation of estate regulations with particular rights. These will differ from estate to estate.
There may then also be regulations. These will differ hugely.

The 1977 Act can be a large part of the answer but so will be the estate documents.
On any version, enquiring as to where the bike has ended up may b a sensible question but not one they would have any duty to answer, and very probably be unwise to answer,

[tph]

Not sure about the legal position but I would have thought it would have been good practice on the part of the tenant management company to store the bikes for a period prior to disposal.

[dls]

Yo do not know that they didn't.

[theycantdothat]

Suppose no leasehold interest is involved. If you leave a chattel on someone's else's land what can they do? They can avoid an action for conversion or trespass to goods by following the procedure set out in the 1977 Act. If the landowner gives a notice to the chattel owner saying, and only saying, that the chattel may be removed without notice and then removes and disposes of the chattel the Act has not been followed. Further, even where the procedure has been followed, there is nothing in the Act which allows the landowner to appropriate the chattel absolutely. All he has the right to do is sell the chattel and he must account to the chattel owner with the proceeds less the costs of disposal.

In the case where a leaseholder, without authority, leaves a chattel on the common parts or some other area not included in any lease then, subject only to the terms of the chattel owner's lease, the position is no different. Except as permitted by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 in relation to commercial lettings, there is nothing in the relationship of landlord and tenant which allows a landlord, without the sanction of the court following the issue of proceedings, to appropriate a tenant's goods for any reason. The OP says there is nothing relevant in the lease. If that is the case the landlord/agent has acted unlawfully. The OP may of course have missed something which the agent is relying on even if he has no good reason to rely on it. The OP should not therefore charge in with accusations and threats. There is though no need to pussyfoot around. The OP should demand an urgent reply to the following questions:

·Under what authority was the requirement to register made?

·Under what authority was the bike removed?

·Under what authority was the bike sold and the proceeds distributed to charity?

·Assuming authority for all the above, under what authority does it extend to a non-leaseholder?