[Metrobeans]

B470 - Storage Goods Selling Bill, TSR Government

A bill legalising the change of ownership of items and auctioning of items in storage lockers.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. Legalisation of storage locker auctions
(1) Owners of storage lockers which have been rented out will be entitled to sell of all items in said locker provided the renter of said locker has failed to pay for three consecutive payments, providing they get a court order permitting them from magistrates.
(2) All items left in the locker after the third failed payment will be deemed to be the property of the actual storage locker owner, not the renter.
(3) These items will be sold through auctions, which may be ran either by the storage unit manager or through a private auction company, should the owner not have the correct paper work to hold an auction.
(4) For the purposes of this Act-
"Storage lockers" will refer to any storage unit privately rented by an individual or company.

2. Enforcement
(1) Enforcement of this act will be solely up to the storage locker owner.

3. Commencement, short title and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the Storage Goods Selling Act 2012
(2) This bill shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
(3) Shall come into force immediately following Royal Assent.

[JPKC]

This Bill strikes at the heart of the biggest problem in modern times: the systemic abuse of storage locker land lords. Please, won't somebody think of the children abused-storage-locker-owners.

It's a no from me as overall it seems unjust. The person's belongings should just be handed over to the authorities once the lease has ended - if they don't pay upfront then they should since that's just common sense. The precedent this would set is odd.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[tehFrance]

WTF? hell no, I wouldn't want someone being legally allowed to sell my stuff because I don't make a couple of payments... I can't believe I missed this in the government forum and I normally keep an eye for stuff like this.

[Birchington]

I don't agree that people's goods should simply be sold after repeated non-payment. Locker owners should instead seek what they are owed via existing legal channels. A no from me.

[agoetcherian]

Someone's been watching Storage Wars...

[internetguru]

And people questioned why I pushed through a vote of no confidence.

[Adam.]

How long exactly would "three consecutive payments" entail? Would a rented storage locker paid and rented for on a daily basis be subject to this law?

I do not believe a person who fails to make a payment for three days, or even less than three days, should lose their property as a result.

[barnetlad]

So if you banked with Nat West you'd have had one of your three failed payments?

Maybe it should be the forced sale of the bank director's possessions- bye bye their flash watches and Porsche's.

[paperclip]

Either im being really dense, which i admit could be the case because i really don't understand this bill, or this is a really stupid bill.

To start, points number two and three conflict; why is the government telling me what i can do with/how to sell property which is legally mine?

I would love to know whose idea this was, and their rationale behind this bill?

[xXedixXx]

No way. What may be in a locker could be incredibly valuable to someone for sentimental reasons and then be sold for pennies, that just doesn't seem right and they may not have been able to pay for 101 different reasons.

[MacDaddi]

I think being able to take charge of the items is ridiculuos ideea

[jsb123]

What if the value of the goods in the locker is more valuable than the cost of the locker? The renter loses everything in there because they don't pay? It seems a little...brutal. There must be other ways to deal with it rather than the blanket acquisition of property.
How wide-spread is this problem of non-payment, anyway?

[Keckers]

This is a ridiculous bill, mmmmkay.

[RoryS]

Ridiculous bill, nay.

[agoetcherian]

(Original post by paperclip)
Either im being really dense, which i admit could be the case because i really don't understand this bill, or this is a really stupid bill.

To start, points number two and three conflict; why is the government telling me what i can do with/how to sell property which is legally mine?

I would love to know whose idea this was, and their rationale behind this bill?

The rationale behind this bill was someone watching too much of the History channel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storage_Wars

It's a pretty decent programme to be fair, but a stupid idea for government policy.

[Mechie]

Not paying rent for 3 months means all your items are taken away? That seems pretty harsh - as JPKC said, it would be better if the items were given to the relevant authorities.

Also, the contradiction between 1(2) and 1(3) is astounding. So the items are my legal property, but I must sell them?

[toronto353]

Perhaps we could adapt this so that the goods are sent to the local authorities and held by them until such a time that the debt is paid off...

[thunder_chunky]

Oh super, pay up or we'll sell all your stuff. That's nice.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by toronto353)
Perhaps we could adapt this so that the goods are sent to the local authorities and held by them until such a time that the debt is paid off...

So free storage at the local authorities... seems like a great deal for the guy that cannot pay

[toronto353]

(Original post by tehFrance)
So free storage at the local authorities... seems like a great deal for the guy that cannot pay

But they can't retrieve them though.