Deciding who owns a lost item
Both texts are newly written practice sources about invented people, places or projects.
Text One: An original report on an invented lost-property trial.
During a four-week trial, staff changed the way found items were advertised. The public list gave enough information for an owner to recognise a possible loss, but one distinguishing feature was kept in the office record. A claimant was asked to describe that feature before seeing the item.
| Public entry | Detail kept in the office record | Claimant's statement |
|---|---|---|
| Navy backpack found in the upstairs corridor on Monday | Green thread tied around a repaired zip pull | “I repaired the zip with green thread.” |
| Silver-coloured ring found beside the changing rooms | Initials R.L. engraved inside | “It has R.L. on the inside.” |
| Black umbrella found near the entrance on Friday | One spoke bound with red thread | “It has no repairs, but there is an automatic button in the handle.” |
The first two items were returned because the claimants supplied details that had not appeared publicly. The umbrella was retained: the claimant's description did not account for its recorded repair. Staff did not award an item simply to the first person who asked for it.
Time and location remained useful supporting details, but they were not treated as perfect tests. An owner might remember the day incorrectly, and another visitor could have moved an item before it was handed in. Staff therefore considered the whole description and recorded the reason for each decision.
Text Two: An original report about a different invented lost-property office.
The office introduced a two-stage claim after several people responded to notices about plain coats and bags. At first, a claimant saw only the item's general description and where it had been found. Staff then asked about less obvious evidence, such as wear, contents or a matching item still in the claimant's possession.
Confidence alone was not accepted as proof. One person spoke with certainty about a plain grey coat but could not describe anything that distinguished it from three others. By contrast, another claimant gave the wrong day for losing a jacket but accurately described a stitched name label and an old travel ticket in an inside pocket. Staff decided that the incorrect day mattered less than the two details that had never been advertised.
Every claim was entered in a log, including unsuccessful ones. When evidence remained mixed, a second member of staff checked the record. If no decisive match could be made, the item stayed in storage rather than being given to the most persuasive claimant. The report concluded that public notices should help owners come forward without supplying the answers to the checks used later.
Synthesise what you learn from both texts about how staff decide whether lost property should be returned to a claimant.
382 exam-style questions on WJEC GCSE English Language 3.1.3 Short and extended response question types. Each one has a worked solution and a mark scheme showing where the marks go.