Fixing Things That Don't belong To You

[GeeKay]

I find myself faced with a tricky conundrum, one which no amount of googling seems able to resolve at present. So my query is this: if I accidentally find myself in possession of a damaged item, whether it be a book, soft toy, or piece of jewellery, and I have it repaired without first seeking the owner's permission (or even knowing in advance who the owner might be) would I be breaking the law in any way? In conclusion: would the owner be within his or her rights to seek redress through the courts?

I guess this query has particular relevance to tenancy agreements, and so forth. Nonetheless, the real focus here is how it applies in a more general sense.

Many Thanks.

[des8]

I can envisage situations where repairing an item could devalue it.
I am thinking of eg antique items which can lose value by being over restored or repaired, and also where a particular damage has sentimental value eg damage caused by a now departed relative of the owner.
Not breaking the law in the sense plod will be feeling your collar, but you could be facing a civil claim for trespass if the item is not yours

I'm not sure what you mean by "accidentally" finding yourself in possession of someone else's goods

[charitynjw]

I can envisage situations where repairing an item could devalue it.

[GeeKay]

I can envisage situations where repairing an item could devalue it.
I am thinking of eg antique items which can lose value by being over restored or repaired, and also where a particular damage has sentimental value eg damage caused by a now departed relative of the owner.
Not breaking the law in the sense plod will be feeling your collar, but you could be facing a civil claim for trespass if the item is not yours

I'm not sure what you mean by "accidentally" finding yourself in possession of someone else's goods

Yes, I think I understand now. 'Trespass' seems to be the correct term here. In passing, what I meant by 'accidentally' (in the above context) is encountering quite by chance an item that has seemingly been abandoned or mislayed by its owner. An extreme example may suffice: you rescue someone's seriously injured pet cat. You don't have a phone on you, and anyway time is of the essence. So you take the cat straight to the nearest vet to have it treated. My guess is that the vet would administer to the cat's needs, even if the owner can't be found, at least in the short term. Legally, though, I'm all at sea about the owner's rights here. In the real world I assume the vast majority of pet owners would be only too glad to pay for the treatment. But what if the owner is a born contrarian? Or perhaps he or she can't afford to foot the bill. . . or they're simply too callous to give a damn? What then?

[des8]

shoot them (owner .. not cat)?
More seriously the person who took injured animal to vet could be liable for cost, but in most cases if the owner was not prepared to pay the vet (in my experience anyway) waives fee or contacts a charity such as Cats Protection.
Other than immediate emergency treatment to prevent pain (euthanasia or pain relief) I doubt any vet would pursue expensive treatment without first ascertaining who was going to pay.

[charitynjw]

I have (on a couple of occasions) found cats that have been knocked down & injured (not by me, I hasten to add.)
Both times I've taken the injured animal to a vet.
Neither occasion did the vets even ask me for payment of treatment