Landlord in Distress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    There are a couple of practical issues - some hearings and activity have to take place in a court to be valid.
    It's probably fairly simple to work round, but that requires a parliament, and there isn't going to be one actually sitting from the sounds of it.

    I'd imagine after a brief interruption, paper only cases will progress fine, but remote hearings are quite complex when they involve people with no national ID system.
    I court case involving legal professional only is one thing, but a magistrate's hearing or a family/property hearing?
    How would you know who was dialling in?
    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
      How would you know who was dialling in?
      I am sure there are ways around it. I have NEVER in fact been asked in any court hearing or FTT hearing to prove my identity (though I suppose the other side has never challenged it).

      The alternative is far worse than the legalistic technical issue.

      Comment


        #18
        I'm not saying that the issues aren't surmountable, in fact one of the possible silver linings of this sh1t show is that remote working and remote courts will become more of the norm.

        Currently, the court systems' technology is shockingly bad. If it was a business, the IT director would have been sacked.
        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

          That's exactly the problem. It is not equal. Those who are paying the price are those who have saved for their old age, very selected parts of the economy (such as landlords), those with fledgling businesses -- and most of all our young people. This is essentially a massive transfer of poverty and death to our youth so that a few boomers can be saved. That might sound harsh, but I am afraid that this is the reality of the thing.

          I am in total agreement with you.

          Comment


            #20
            I watched PMQs over lunchtime on the BBC and Mr Johnson clearly said in a reply to Mr Corbyn's loud request for 'no evictions to take place'
            ''no fault evictions will not take place'' and I would understand that to mean Section 21 which leaves Section 8 to deal with rent debt should we ever get the courts working again.



            Freedom at the point of zero............

            Comment


              #21
              I had already given notice which was up two days ago, can I put my possession order in now so I can be first in the queue?

              Comment


                #22
                Why not....

                Comment


                  #23
                  It is my understanding of the proposals that you can still issue S21/S8 notices, and will still be able to do so.

                  It is my understanding that notices served before the changes become law (probably tomorrow, Friday; possibly today) will be unaffected (so probably too late now to serve one by post) and you will be able to apply for court proceedings when they expire. For new notices you will have to give at least 3 months notice before you can start enforcement action.

                  BUT you can still issue S21/S8 notices so that you are ready to go in 3 months (or whenever restrictions are lifted).

                  And S8 arrears notices, even if discretionary, might focus the minds of tenants that try it on.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Given the criticality of this, I have put this message on three relevant threads in some form. By the way, for anyone following the actual science here, the rather useless Imperial College Epidemiology Unit who originally published the headline modelling reports saying that 500,000 people would likely die in the UK from this virus, have now admitted that it is a LOT less deadly than their fanciful assumptions (which they were told from the start were false) - and have revised the estimate down to 20,000 (far less than annual usual flu deaths). Largely on the basis of Imperial College reports, many Western economies have already been tanked, and many jobs, careers and businesses destroyed.

                    At the moment most of the discussion of this fiasco is taking place on twitter

                    https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/sta...33211011690499

                    https://www.newscientist.com/article...pert-predicts/

                    Part of the problem with this whole story is that the state has tried to control scientific discussion. For example
                    the United States Federal agencies have tried to block reporters from having access to a wide range of scientific advice or to allow that advice to be challenged. We live in dangerous times, the virus being the lease part of that danger

                    https://www.healthnewsreview.org/202...s-information/

                    Comment


                      #25
                      You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
                      Rahm Emanuel

                      Comment


                        #26
                        AndrewDod Out of interest Andrew, what would you have us do, given that we live in (more or less) democratic society where the governing bodies are obliged (to a large extent) to submit to public opinion, however imperfect that may be or however shrillly it may be expressed through imperfect medium such as tabloids.

                        This is a genuine question as I have seen you express your opinion repeatedly (in several threads) that what our government (and most others across the work) is doing is wrong.

                        The potential cost (to the government) of not doing anything is that the promised tsunami of deaths comes to pass and they get the blame for it. At least this way they can claim to have done all they can, whether or not the end results are any different. That is how politics works in a system where you need to votes to stay in power.

                        Sweden is more or less carrying on as normal - schools remain open, many people continue to go to work, commuter trains+buses are packed in the cities, etc. Do you really think our government could do that without being hung, drawn and quartered in the media (and no I'm not talking about the Spectator or the New Statesman)?

                        Comment


                          #27
                          I read the report. It states that the expected number of deaths has reduced from 500,000 to 20,000 because we took the steps we did. The 500,000 figure was based on the expectation if no action has been taken. Your post would suggest that the scientists were wrong from the start which is not what the report states.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Most serious epidemiologists think they were wrong from the start. This is just them defending themselves in a rather sleezy manner. The models never presumed that current measures would reduce deaths in and of themselves -- only delay them or permit hospitals to cope. None (or almost none) of the reduction will be accounted for by the measures. The number of people who eventually get the virus will remain exactly unchanged (perhaps 80% to 100% of the population) -- the number they got wrong is the mortality rate of infected people -- and they got that wrong (art least at the best guess right now) by a factor of 20 or more.

                            Unfortunately these are the same epidemiological team who got the last two virus pandemics very very badly wrong.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              LandlordJ,

                              I don't disagree with any of that. The problem is that we, as a society, don't understand science or scientific thinking. Journalists like a good story. This is a nasty virus, but the measures are not and were never justified in my view (massive self isolation of vulnerable people was -- shutting down the economy, the courts, democracy and civilisation were not). This still has a way to go, and good self isolation is important until we understand it. But we should not allow it to be pretended that the reason for the low number of deaths is because of the measures taken -- because that was never in fact the predominant intent (the intent was to allow hospitals to cope better, and in the hope that a vaccine would be developed in time to cut off a slower distribution of cases (not a lesser distribution of infected people).

                              Comment


                                #30
                                This is far from my area of expertise (not sure I have one, possibly Marvel Comics of the 70s and 80s).

                                Covid 19 (at the point where most of the European countries had to decide how to respond) was an undocumented killer, with a relatively high infection rate (1 person infects 2 - 2.5) and relatively high mortality rate (1-2%*), no effective vaccine and unknown survivor resistance. It's also infectious before symptoms appear.

                                * I know that this not much better than a guess at this point, but it's the best data we have and that's what you have to base your decisions on. If it's wildly off decisions taken may be wrong.

                                By means of comparison. Flu is a well documented annual killer with low infection rates (1 person infects 1.3), low mortality rates (possibly 0.1%), has a fairly effective vaccine and quite decent survivor resistance. Survivors take about half the time to recover from flu than covid19.

                                Starting with a base of 10 infections, after 15 transmission cycles, flu has under 400 cases with no deaths, covid 19 has 3.7m infected people and just under 40k deaths. Three cycles later, the entire UK population has it and there's half a million dead with covid 19.

                                But way before this point the figures have become unrealistic because the survivors probably do have some immunity, so with no international travel, the virus has no one to infect in the UK and is actually on a massive decline.

                                The problem is that very small changes in the infection and mortality rate have huge changes in outcomes. But, given the limited data we have available, it would be wrong of nations not to react as they have done.

                                If the actions are an overreaction, we will only know that at some point in the future when we have better numbers.

                                But there's also every chance they're right, and I think the USA (or Brazil) is about to be a lab testing the "do not very much" approach on a live national population.
                                I don't think most governments could take the risk of being wrong, and everything else just flows naturally from that.



                                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X