South Holland DC destroys £10k worth of vintage bikes on basis that they are 'rubbish' and garages are for 'vehicles'

[brooksby]

They should contact the police and press for prosecution as they have burgled/forced entry to their property without just cause.

Have you read their contract?

have you? Do please show me the bit that says we can break into your garage and steal your stuff, dispose of it and we won't keep a record of where your stuff went and then say tough.
Maybe you're up for a bit of the same if someone isn't at home despite paying fully/complying with tenancy or you accept unfair contract terms?

This. Even if their contract does state what the tenants can and cannot keep in the garage, surely the council still has to account for it. If they did break in, don't they have some sort of responsibility to say "It's here if you want to collect it, but there's a fee" or even "The contract to dispose was given to XXXX and they can sell it, they made £YYYY". No audit trail at all? Really??

[reohn2]

Have you read their contract?

have you? Do please show me the bit that says we can break into your garage and steal your stuff, dispose of it and we won't keep a record of where your stuff went and then say tough.
Maybe you're up for a bit of the same if someone isn't at home despite paying fully/complying with tenancy or you accept unfair contract terms?

This. Even if their contract does state what the tenants can and cannot keep in the garage, surely the council still has to account for it. If they did break in, don't they have some sort of responsibility to say "It's here if you want to collect it, but there's a fee" or even "The contract to dispose was given to XXXX and they can sell it, they made £YYYY". No audit trail at all? Really??

Surely before breaking into any rented property the landlord would have to inform the tenant and give reasonable notice to remove anything even if it did contravene the tenancy agreement.
Though for the life of me I can't see how keeping bikes in a lock up garage warrants removal and destruction

[PH]

They should contact the police and press for prosecution as they have burgled/forced entry to their property without just cause.

Have you read their contract?

have you? Do please show me the bit that says we can break into your garage and steal your stuff, dispose of it and we won't keep a record of where your stuff went and then say tough.
Maybe you're up for a bit of the same if someone isn't at home despite paying fully/complying with tenancy or you accept unfair contract terms?

I haven’t, that’s why I’m not jumping to conclusions.
Is it not possible that the council acted within the terms of the contract? They attached a notice to the property. I don’t know if that fulfills their obligations, neither do you.

[pete75]

Have you read their contract?

have you? Do please show me the bit that says we can break into your garage and steal your stuff, dispose of it and we won't keep a record of where your stuff went and then say tough.
Maybe you're up for a bit of the same if someone isn't at home despite paying fully/complying with tenancy or you accept unfair contract terms?

I haven’t, that’s why I’m not jumping to conclusions. You say they should contact the press, isn’t that were we’ve all seen it?
Is it not plausible that the council acted within the terms of the contract? They attached a notice to the property. I don’t know if that fulfills their obligations, neither do you.

Attaching a notice to the property is sufficient if it appears to have been abandoned by the tenants and there other contact methods have failed. In the rent was up to date and being taken by direct debit. The council needed contact details to be able to take the direct debits.

[PH]

I give up
Everyone thinks they know the council acted unlawfully, but the legal position will be determined by what’s in the contract or agreed terms and conditions, not by what’s said on an Internet forum. If the council acted illegally, good luck to the owners. If they didn’t there’s not a lot can be done.

[pete75]

I give up
Everyone thinks they know the council acted unlawfully, but the legal position will be determined by what’s in the contract or agreed terms and conditions, not by what’s said on an Internet forum. If the council acted illegally, good luck to the owners. If they didn’t there’s not a lot can be done.

SO do I. Read the story again. The council claimed the garage was abandoned, couldn't trace the tenants etc yet were taking rent for it by direct debit.Even after they broke into and cleared the garage they continued to collect the rent. It's quite clear they acted wrongly by regarding a garage as being abandoned by the tenants at the same time as collecting rent from those tenants.

[Vorpal]

I give up
Everyone thinks they know the council acted unlawfully, but the legal position will be determined by what’s in the contract or agreed terms and conditions, not by what’s said on an Internet forum. If the council acted illegally, good luck to the owners. If they didn’t there’s not a lot can be done.

It is possible that the contract said that the garages could only be used for the storage of taxed motor vehicles (they sometimes do). It's likely that the council had a clause in the contract that allowed them to remove items after notification of the tenants. But it can't possibly be legal for them to do so,
-without notifying the tenants
-whilst continuing to accept rental payments for the garage
These things generally require termination of the contract with notice. Even if they believed it had been abandoned, they were obligated to send a notice to the last known address of the the last known tenant. Also, it seems difficult to believe that they could conclude it had been 'abandoned' whilst accepting regular payments for rental.

[mjr]

Even if they believed it had been abandoned, they were obligated to send a notice to the last known address of the the last known tenant. Also, it seems difficult to believe that they could conclude it had been 'abandoned' whilst accepting regular payments for rental.

This. Part of the outrage is because the council's claim of abandonment is incredible when they were almost certainly told where their tenants had moved to, in order to communicate with them about settlement of the council tax account. New address has been on every council home-moving form I've filled out. The council apparently hasn't passed that change to its lettings department, but that's the council's liability IMO. Also, they seem to have had a telephone contact number that still worked but wasn't tried.

Then there's the quip about bikes being rubbish rather than vehicles...

[reohn2]

......Then there's the quip about bikes being rubbish rather than vehicles...

One man's rubbish is another man's cherished posession,clearly evident in this case

[PH]

it can't possibly be legal for them to do so,
-without notifying the tenants
-whilst continuing to accept rental payments for the garage
.

The council are saying the notice on the garage was notification. Whether this is legally adequate will either be specified in the contract or for a magistrate to decide.
The continuatin of the DD could have been a simple error, I’m not sure it has any other significance.

[Cyril Haearn]

I do love speculation, there is a lot of it here
Maybe a Yorkshire saying applies: "where thas muck [rubbish] thas brass"

[pete75]

it can't possibly be legal for them to do so,
-without notifying the tenants
-whilst continuing to accept rental payments for the garage
.

The council are saying the notice on the garage was notification. Whether this is legally adequate will either be specified in the contract or for a magistrate to decide.
The continuatin of the DD could have been a simple error, I’m not sure it has any other significance.

Contract law is civil - nothing to do with magistrates. To continue to take rent means a tenancy hasn't ended.

[SilverBadge]

Sue them.

Remove some "scrap" paper from the South Holland DC safe . . .

[fastpedaller]

The continuatin of the DD could have been a simple error, I’m not sure it has any other significance.

If the tenants hadn't paid, would the Council have just said 'simple error'? No they'd have been demanding payment the next day.
They should be brought to account. Their 'rule' that the garage is only for vehicles is flawed - any court in the land HAS to concede that a bike is a vehicle (apart from maybe some 'artisan objects' that are put on hipster's lounge walls )
The fact that they've said they'll refund the rent is an indication they know they are liable. There should be an audit trail. Unfortunately the Police probably won't get involved, because they venerate the Council as 'an authority' - but let's face it 'they' are as legally liable as you or I, even when they try to hide behind the corporate identity! A sad case.