unpaid storage rent
Discussion
I have two cars and a 17' cruising yacht on my premises but the owners have not been round with their agreed £1/day for storage for months and years.
What is my position as far as repossessing these units? I would estimate that their sale values have already been superseded by the values of their unpaid rents. I do not have the cars' V5Cs.
What is my position as far as repossessing these units? I would estimate that their sale values have already been superseded by the values of their unpaid rents. I do not have the cars' V5Cs.
Lets be honest, they could turn up tomorrow to collect their car or yacht and could demand you let them go
As there is no paper trail there's nothing to stop them going to the local plod and saying your keeping their car/yacht unlawfully
after all you have no way of showing how long they've been in your storage
As there is no paper trail there's nothing to stop them going to the local plod and saying your keeping their car/yacht unlawfully
after all you have no way of showing how long they've been in your storage
Yes he does - his word. Others may also have seen the goods at the OP's premises over a long period.
OP, the answer is found in section 12 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. Anyone who is in the business of storing goods for payment should familiarise himself with this provision. I set it out below.
You should make a reasonable attempt to find the owner of the property and give him or her notice that, if the bill is not paid, you will dispose of the goods.
You can attach a notice stating this intention to the goods.
Then you can sell the goods, and set the sale price off against sums due to you. If you make any profit, you have to hold that for the owner.
You can obtain a V5 for a vehicle from DVLA.
Here is section 12. The owner is the bailor; the OP is the bailee.
OP, the answer is found in section 12 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. Anyone who is in the business of storing goods for payment should familiarise himself with this provision. I set it out below.
You should make a reasonable attempt to find the owner of the property and give him or her notice that, if the bill is not paid, you will dispose of the goods.
You can attach a notice stating this intention to the goods.
Then you can sell the goods, and set the sale price off against sums due to you. If you make any profit, you have to hold that for the owner.
You can obtain a V5 for a vehicle from DVLA.
Here is section 12. The owner is the bailor; the OP is the bailee.
Parliament said:
12 Bailee’s power of sale.
(1) This section applies to goods in the possession or under the control of a bailee where—
(a) the bailor is in breach of an obligation to take delivery of the goods or, if the terms of the bailment so provide, to give directions as to their delivery, or
(b) the bailee could impose such an obligation by giving notice to the bailor, but is unable to trace or communicate with the bailor, or
(c) the bailee can reasonably expect to be relieved of any duty to safeguard the goods on giving notice to the bailor, but is unable to trace or communicate with the bailor.
(2) In the cases of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act a bailee may, for the purposes of subsection (1), impose an obligation on the bailor to take delivery of the goods, or as the case may be to give directions as to their delivery, and in those cases the said Part I sets out the method of notification.
(3) If the bailee—
(a) has in accordance with Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act given notice to the bailor of his intention to sell the goods under this subsection, or
(b) has failed to trace or communicate with the bailor with a view to giving him such a notice, after having taken reasonable steps for the purpose,
and is reasonably satisfied that the bailor owns the goods, he shall be entitled, as against the bailor, to sell the goods.
(4) Where subsection (3) applies but the bailor did not in fact own the goods, a sale under this section, or under section 13, shall not give a good title as against the owner, or as against a person claiming under the owner.
(5) A bailee exercising his powers under subsection (3) shall be liable to account to the bailor for the proceeds of sale, less any costs of sale, and—
(a)the account shall be taken on the footing that the bailee should have adopted the best method of sale reasonably available in the circumstances, and
(b)where subsection (3)(a) applies, any sum payable in respect of the goods by the bailor to the bailee which accrued due before the bailee gave notice of intention to sell the goods shall be deductible from the proceeds of sale.
(6) A sale duly made under this section gives a good title to the purchaser as against the bailor.
(7)In this section, section 13, and Schedule 1 to this Act,
(a)“bailor” and “bailee” include their respective successors in title, and
(b)references to what is payable, paid or due to the bailee in respect of the goods include references to what would be payable by the bailor to the bailee as a condition of delivery of the goods at the relevant time.
(8)This section, and Schedule 1 to this Act, have effect subject to the terms of the bailment.
(9)This section shall not apply where the goods were bailed before the commencement of this Act.
(1) This section applies to goods in the possession or under the control of a bailee where—
(a) the bailor is in breach of an obligation to take delivery of the goods or, if the terms of the bailment so provide, to give directions as to their delivery, or
(b) the bailee could impose such an obligation by giving notice to the bailor, but is unable to trace or communicate with the bailor, or
(c) the bailee can reasonably expect to be relieved of any duty to safeguard the goods on giving notice to the bailor, but is unable to trace or communicate with the bailor.
(2) In the cases of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act a bailee may, for the purposes of subsection (1), impose an obligation on the bailor to take delivery of the goods, or as the case may be to give directions as to their delivery, and in those cases the said Part I sets out the method of notification.
(3) If the bailee—
(a) has in accordance with Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act given notice to the bailor of his intention to sell the goods under this subsection, or
(b) has failed to trace or communicate with the bailor with a view to giving him such a notice, after having taken reasonable steps for the purpose,
and is reasonably satisfied that the bailor owns the goods, he shall be entitled, as against the bailor, to sell the goods.
(4) Where subsection (3) applies but the bailor did not in fact own the goods, a sale under this section, or under section 13, shall not give a good title as against the owner, or as against a person claiming under the owner.
(5) A bailee exercising his powers under subsection (3) shall be liable to account to the bailor for the proceeds of sale, less any costs of sale, and—
(a)the account shall be taken on the footing that the bailee should have adopted the best method of sale reasonably available in the circumstances, and
(b)where subsection (3)(a) applies, any sum payable in respect of the goods by the bailor to the bailee which accrued due before the bailee gave notice of intention to sell the goods shall be deductible from the proceeds of sale.
(6) A sale duly made under this section gives a good title to the purchaser as against the bailor.
(7)In this section, section 13, and Schedule 1 to this Act,
(a)“bailor” and “bailee” include their respective successors in title, and
(b)references to what is payable, paid or due to the bailee in respect of the goods include references to what would be payable by the bailor to the bailee as a condition of delivery of the goods at the relevant time.
(8)This section, and Schedule 1 to this Act, have effect subject to the terms of the bailment.
(9)This section shall not apply where the goods were bailed before the commencement of this Act.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 15th May 10:45
Thanks fellas. I think I have enough information to proceed. The money's not really important, I just want my space back - Skipper 17 yacht cruiser; 1959 Alfa Romeo Guiletta Sprint; 1960s Mini Cooper ('think it's an S as it has no tappet covers and the wheels have holes in).
If they're yours, collect soon or they'll be sold!
If they're yours, collect soon or they'll be sold!
normal bloke said:
Thanks fellas. I think I have enough information to proceed. The money's not really important, I just want my space back - Skipper 17 yacht cruiser; 1959 Alfa Romeo Guiletta Sprint; 1960s Mini Cooper ('think it's an S as it has no tappet covers and the wheels have holes in).
If they're yours, collect soon or they'll be sold!
Let me know when you come to sell them! Might be interested in either/both of the cars!If they're yours, collect soon or they'll be sold!
I know nothing about boats , but the cars sound like they might be quite desirable , and worth a few bob , if in reasonable condition .
Following on from BV's post above , first step might be to obtain RK details from DVLA , if not already known to you , and write to owners giving deadline for removal of vehicles , along with invoice for storage fees owing to date , giving warning that if vehicles not removed by deadline they will be sold . Also give a timeframe for response to your letter , two weeks might be reasonable . If no response you can then go down the route described by BV .
I have no idea how you would trace the owner of a boat , if you do not already have contact details .
Following on from BV's post above , first step might be to obtain RK details from DVLA , if not already known to you , and write to owners giving deadline for removal of vehicles , along with invoice for storage fees owing to date , giving warning that if vehicles not removed by deadline they will be sold . Also give a timeframe for response to your letter , two weeks might be reasonable . If no response you can then go down the route described by BV .
I have no idea how you would trace the owner of a boat , if you do not already have contact details .
Pontoneer said:
I know nothing about boats , but the cars sound like they might be quite desirable , and worth a few bob , if in reasonable condition .
Following on from BV's post above , first step might be to obtain RK details from DVLA , if not already known to you , and write to owners giving deadline for removal of vehicles , along with invoice for storage fees owing to date , giving warning that if vehicles not removed by deadline they will be sold . Also give a timeframe for response to your letter , two weeks might be reasonable . If no response you can then go down the route described by BV .
I have no idea how you would trace the owner of a boat , if you do not already have contact details .
that's the usual approach , plus notice in the local paper used to be quite common, but given the death of local papers in many places... Following on from BV's post above , first step might be to obtain RK details from DVLA , if not already known to you , and write to owners giving deadline for removal of vehicles , along with invoice for storage fees owing to date , giving warning that if vehicles not removed by deadline they will be sold . Also give a timeframe for response to your letter , two weeks might be reasonable . If no response you can then go down the route described by BV .
I have no idea how you would trace the owner of a boat , if you do not already have contact details .
How could the OP go about proving when the owners of the vehicles/boat last paid him if it's only in cash?
The owners could say we paid you a whole year's worth up-front on 31st December 2011, so we are only 4 and a half month behind whereas the OP could say no you paid me up TO the 31st December 2011 so you are 16 and a half months behind.
The owners could say we paid you a whole year's worth up-front on 31st December 2011, so we are only 4 and a half month behind whereas the OP could say no you paid me up TO the 31st December 2011 so you are 16 and a half months behind.
The OP would prove that, if he needed to, in the same way that anyone proves any disputed fact: by evidence. That can include personal recollection. There is such a thing as telling the truth and being believed. People here often seem to have a quaint belief that the law operates by and requires some form of sorcery, that may involve magical tokens or all powerful documents, but it doesn't. A straightforward tale, told in a straightforward manner by a straightforward person may be all that is required.
normal bloke said:
I have two cars and a 17' cruising yacht on my premises but the owners have not been round with their agreed £1/day for storage for months and years.
What is my position as far as repossessing these units? I would estimate that their sale values have already been superseded by the values of their unpaid rents. I do not have the cars' V5Cs.
Do you not have any details for the owners? names/address?What is my position as far as repossessing these units? I would estimate that their sale values have already been superseded by the values of their unpaid rents. I do not have the cars' V5Cs.
Im guessing without contact details you will have trouble legally claiming ownership after unpaid rent.
[quote=normal bloke] 1960s Mini Cooper ('think it's an S as it has no tappet covers and the wheels have holes in).
quote]
if its either a cooper (997 or 998cc small bore block) or a cooper s (1071, 970 or 1275 large bore block) any of them will have the tappet chest covers.
only the cooper s's have the ventilated wheels, the cooper has the std 3 1/2 inch wheels as per the normal mini.
the vented wheels are either 3 1/2" (std, but rare as they look crap and people used to junk them), or the more common (now) 4 1/2" wheels. if the wheels stick out the body work, it will have the 4 1/2" non cooper s off set wheels, which people used to fit to the drum (or small cooper disc brake) versions to make them look like the cooper s (in which case they wont stick out the arches)
the only large bore engine cooper not to have the tappet chest covers was the 1990s version, but its a common urban myth that the mk3 1970s cooper s had a solid block, normally said by someone trying to flog a car that is either a mk3 s with a 1300gt engine, or a mini 1000 that's been spammed up.
deciding if its a valuable cooper s over a not so valuable cooper is a real minefield, even the chassis number wont tell you the whole story unless you know the wheres and whatnots.
oh, first dibs on it by the way!
quote]
if its either a cooper (997 or 998cc small bore block) or a cooper s (1071, 970 or 1275 large bore block) any of them will have the tappet chest covers.
only the cooper s's have the ventilated wheels, the cooper has the std 3 1/2 inch wheels as per the normal mini.
the vented wheels are either 3 1/2" (std, but rare as they look crap and people used to junk them), or the more common (now) 4 1/2" wheels. if the wheels stick out the body work, it will have the 4 1/2" non cooper s off set wheels, which people used to fit to the drum (or small cooper disc brake) versions to make them look like the cooper s (in which case they wont stick out the arches)
the only large bore engine cooper not to have the tappet chest covers was the 1990s version, but its a common urban myth that the mk3 1970s cooper s had a solid block, normally said by someone trying to flog a car that is either a mk3 s with a 1300gt engine, or a mini 1000 that's been spammed up.
deciding if its a valuable cooper s over a not so valuable cooper is a real minefield, even the chassis number wont tell you the whole story unless you know the wheres and whatnots.
oh, first dibs on it by the way!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff