My son split up with his partner last year and moved out of their rental property, handing it over to her.
He paid all utility bills up to the date he moved. His ex-girlfriend still has the Sky Glass TV and won’t let him take it back. He does not have access to the property because he has transferred it to her. She will use a fire stick to use the TV.
He has canceled everything from Sky but has to continue paying for the TV even though he doesn’t have it. Sky said there’s nothing they can do.
If he stops paying for the TV, he will be behind on payments and will affect his credit score as he has tried to build it.
My son’s ex-girlfriend won’t give his TV back. Can he enter the property and take it with him?
He went to the police to get it back, but they can’t help. He is now in the process of entering the building the next time he picks up his son and takes the TV off the wall and takes it with him.
This isn’t the ideal situation and he could get into trouble if he enters the property without permission, but is there anything else he can do? DB via email
Angharad Carrick from This Is Money replies: This is a difficult but unfortunately common problem.
When it comes to a divorce, there are usually ways a couple can split their assets, but this can become a lot more complicated if the couple is not married.
Some get a cohabitation contract, a legal document between unmarried couples who live together.
This helps to make arrangements for finances, assets and children for when you live together and then when you separate, similar to a pre-nup.
I’m not sure of the specific circumstances surrounding your son’s separation from his ex-partner, but if there were similarities it would obviously affect what your son can do.
The Sky Glass TV subscription is pricey, so I understand your son’s frustration. He’s paying for a service he can’t use, and it looks like his ex-girlfriend isn’t either.
Essentially, Sky Glass is a smart TV with Sky Entertainment built in, allowing users to stream live TV and streaming services directly to the TV in 4K.
These packages can be concluded with contracts of up to 48 months. However, it is unclear for which period your son signed.
Your son will pay for the cost of physical TV, rather than just Sky packages.
You are correct in saying that the subscription is your son’s responsibility because it is in his name, and failure to pay could negatively impact his credit rating.
I asked two lawyers for advice on what your son can do to get his TV back.
Hannah Saxe of Slater and Gordon says court should be a last resort
Julian Bremner, partner and financial arbitrator at Rayden Solicitors said: If the Sky Glass is in his name and he is the owner, he is entitled to its return.
While the police could help, it’s clear they’re not that interested.
I think the options are:
- Seek the help of a lawyer, who can write to the former partner and try to agree on its return; or
- Claim the return of the items, together with any losses suffered as a result of unlawful detention, through the Small Claims Court. This is a relatively user-friendly option that does not require lawyers.
The option of marching in and taking it off the wall is not ideal; in fact, it would be very much against my advice to do so.
The problem would be that he will be trespassing if he enters the premises (and the police would certainly intervene on that step).
It also opens the door to further conflict, especially non-abuse and occupancy proceedings, which in turn can negatively impact his ability to see his child(ren).
If he insists on taking the most unwise step of self-help, his ex-partner has limited rights to complain about taking back the TV.
He should have proof of ownership with him when he picks it up and at the very least make sure he has an independent adult witness with him so his former partner isn’t tempted to embellish it or cause further problems.
Hannah Saxe, lead attorney for Slater and Gordon said: Dealing with the recovery of personal belongings when a relationship breaks down can be tricky, as the cost of instructing a lawyer to sort it out for you is often more than it would cost to replace the items (or Sky to pay, in the case of your sons), which means that it is more cost-proportionate to try to solve the problem yourself.
If your son has proof that he is in contact with Sky, then that is his proof that the TV is his.
Often the police will help people in these circumstances recover their belongings from their former home, especially if they are concerned that if they went alone to retrieve the items there might be a breach of the peace.
I suggest he speak to the police again and show them proof that he owns the TV. He should say that he is concerned that there might be a breach of the peace if he tries to restore the peace himself, and that he would therefore like an officer to go with him.
If that doesn’t work, he may be able to take his ex to small claims court. These claims concern smaller amounts of money, in cases where the legal rules are simple and claimants therefore handle the proceedings themselves rather than instructing a lawyer.
However, going to court should be seen as a last resort.
Very often, warning someone that you will go to court if they don’t pay the money owed in a ‘letter before action’ is enough to get them to cooperate, rather than he or she must handle the procedure.
There is an example of a pre-action letter on the Citizens Advice website.
He might also consider inviting his ex to mediation to resolve any outstanding financial issues, rather than resorting to filing a petition with the court.
I’m not suggesting that he try to take the TV with him the next time he goes to pick up his son, as that will likely make the situation worse.
It is best for him to try to be amicable with his ex for the sake of his son and to protect his son from adult problems such as making financial arrangements.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on it, we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow a commercial relationship to compromise our editorial independence.