In some ways, this is unfair to homeowners.
There are tenants who are living on a landlord's property but not paying rent.
During that time, the landlord is responsible for paying the mortgage and other property expenses and keeping up with repairs, and they cannot foreclose on the property without a court order, which can take anywhere from six months to a year (or longer in some cases).
Landlords are fairly unique in that they must continue to provide services even if their customers (in this case, tenants) don't pay.
Restaurants don't have to keep serving food to people who don't pay, stores don't have to give customers free food (no matter how hungry they are), you can't use the gym if you don't pay for a gym membership, you can't get on a plane if you don't have a ticket.
Landlords, on the other hand, may have to keep their tenants in the property free of charge, sometimes for months, and are also responsible for carrying out repairs. Landlords would be committing a criminal offence if they tried to evict a tenant without first obtaining a court order of possession.
Landlord's lien?
So a landlord may feel they have the right to seize or hold onto a tenant's possessions when the tenant moves out, saying they can't get them back until rent is paid.
But this is not allowed. You cannot sell them or hold them as collateral. Your car, TV, and computer are your property and the landlord has no right to them. If the landlord takes them and sells them, this is a civil tort and also a criminal offense.
About liens
Legally, in certain circumstances, someone has the right to have a “lien” on someone else's property, which means they have the right to hold onto that property until they are paid.
Hotel owners have liens on guests' luggage, agents (including rental agents) have liens on their clients' property if their fees aren't paid, and lawyers have liens on their clients' documents. I believe there are liens in aviation and maritime law as well.
However, in the case of residential rentals, there is no “landlord's lien” no matter how long the tenant is behind on rent. It may be unfair, but it is true.
Only a County Bailiff or High Court Sheriff acting under a court order have the legal power to seize and subsequently sell a tenant's property.
And finally
It has been argued that if a tenant falls behind on a large amount of rent and the landlord seizes the tenant's property, it may become difficult for the tenant to recover the property through the courts because the landlord may countersue for the overdue rent and attempt to offset damages owed to the tenant against the overdue rent.
This may work, but it will depend on what the withheld items are. I suspect the judge will be hostile.
Does anyone know of any instances where this has happened?
Click here to see all urban legends.