Item on loan has been sold on. Need advise please.

[tee4two]

Hi all, just wondering if there is anyone who can give some advice. My uncle, a sculptor, loaned a sculpture to a church over 40 years ago, this was on display up until approximately 2 years ago. Today he has called into to see it and was dismayed to see it had been removed, and even more upset to be informed it had been sold. From what i can gather, there was no written contract or agreement, and obviously over the years the original people involved in the loan have long gone. The sculpture was/is worth quite a lot both financially and emotionally. Is there anything he can do about this??

With nothing in writing & nobody to confirm the agreement I'd have thought not

When you say long gone, do you mean dead or moved on?

But there is such a thing as a verbal contract. I think he needs to see a solicitor as the Church did not own the sculpture so did not have the right to sell it.

Does he have anything at all that might help him, e.g a photo of when he loaned it to the Church, was there something in the local paper for example? He needs to try and find something that might help. If he can prove he only loaned it then he may at least get some compensation.

Was it insured? I believe it is not possible to insure something that you don't own. This may or may not help him.

Does the Church know where it has gone (auction?), this may be another avenue to explore.

I think probably dead, there should be a photograph in the archives of our local newspaper to prove he made it, his own copies have long gone.

If there was nothing written down, absolutely nothing I would imagine. I suspect the current church members quite honestly thought they owned it and they were free to do with it as they wished. They're probably mortified that they didn't know, but it's not their fault - it's your uncle's.

It was a verbal agreement, there was a service in the church when he loaned it to them (Its a massive sculpture of the crucifixion), he lit the candles under it. Its been on the altar all these years.
However, the church seems to have been handed over to another group, still religious (not my church, i dont know the ins and outs of it) and it seems that this group has sold it as part of a package to an American antique dealer, to raise funds.

How long did he intend to loan it to them? I think the local paper's archives will be the best bet - if it was covered they'll make reference to it being on loan.

I don't think he had a certain time frame in mind, it was just on loan, and the years just passed by. He will search the archives on Monday, I just feel sad for him.

how were the people running the place supposed to know it was on loan?

Presumably he wants it back, rather than to have the money? Maybe the church could track it down & buy it back?

The law is clear. You cannot sell something you don't own. It is theft. However because of the verbal agreement to a long term loan the police will look at this as a grey area and more likely to be a civil matter. It's worth talking to them though.

Your uncle must get all the evidence he can together. Newspaper clippings, any names he can remember, anyone alive who may be aware of the loan, and write to the church in question requesting the return of his property. He had a verbal contract with the church which is just as binding as a written one. He can get newspaper reports from his local newspaper if they have them stored on disc or microfiche. If they fail to pay him recompense or return the statue (unlikely) he must take them to a small claims court. I'm not sure of the upper limit now. Around 10,000 but I'm not sure as it's been raised.

He has a very good case and the cost to himself will be around £85. It doesn't need a solicitor but check what the limit is for claims at the local court. You can also download forms from them and they are very helpful.
The church may not have been aware of the ownership but ignorance of the law is no defence!

@sneezecakesmum. I'm not a lawyer but are you sure it's theft if the person genuinely (and reasonably) believes the item to be theirs ? I'd always be told that to be theft you had to have dishonest intent.

The first 3 sentences are correct but as I go on to say the circumstances of the loan may change the simplicity. I will go and look up my law books (gcse and a level) it's pretty clear there.

I'd say misappropriation rather than theft.

For it to be theft there has to be dishonesty in depriving the owner of their property. There may have been somewhere along the line (who knows what the sellers knew) but impossible to prove .

Under civil law it's clear the property was sold without the owners consent. £10,000 is the limit for claims in SCC.

Misappropriation is still intentional, illegal activity. Again you can't prove it in this case.