Landlady wins rapist flat appeal

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

  • Landlady wins rapist flat appeal

    As this case has been discussed here in the past as a cautionary tale of the dangers of illegally evicting a tenant, this may be of interest:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7933228.stm

  • #2
    I would be interested to know how they would wish to change the law on this.


    I think a change in how/why legal aid was provided in this case/circumstance is perhaps more relevant than a change in housing law per se.

    Are there more detailed facts about this case anywhere?
    All posts in good faith, but do not rely on them

    * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You can search the forums here:

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bel View Post
      I would be interested to know how they would wish to change the law on this.


      I think a change in how/why legal aid was provided in this case/circumstance is perhaps more relevant than a change in housing law per se.

      Are there more detailed facts about this case anywhere?

      Re: the law - There is no need to change the law. It is a defence to an action for illegal eviction for the landlord to show that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the tenant had given up possession (or words to that effect). In this case, the appellate court felt the judge at first instance had come to the wrong conclusion. It also appears that for whatever reason, certain important evidence was not put before the Court. In short, there is nothing wrong with the law as it stands, and to call for a change is just a knee-jerk reaction to an isolated case.

      Re: legal aid - Why shouldn't a person who claims they have been illegally evicted receive legal aid if they are impecunious? The loss of one's home is an extremely serious matter, and thus highly deserving of public assistance. Although the tenant eventually lost the case, that doesn't mean his claim was without merit.


      I think Mrs Goymer would be better off sticking to shampoo and sets (half-price for OAPs every Tuesday) rather than involving herself in legal reform.




      Doubtless more of the same ill-informed "why oh why" outrage from the LLZ regulars will appear in this thread over the next day or two.
      Health Warning


      I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

      All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by agent46 View Post

        Re: legal aid - Why shouldn't a person who claims they have been illegally evicted receive legal aid if they are impecunious? The loss of one's home is an extremely serious matter, and thus highly deserving of public assistance. Although the tenant eventually lost the case, that doesn't mean his claim was without merit.


        Of course legal aid should be made available for illegal evictions. I'm not saying that.
        All posts in good faith, but do not rely on them

        * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *

        You can search the forums here:

        Comment


        • #5
          why o why ? !!!!
          A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
          W.Churchill

          Comment


          • #6
            Delilah.

            (10 char filler)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bel View Post
              I think a change in how/why legal aid was provided in this case/circumstance is perhaps more relevant than a change in housing law per se.

              Originally posted by Bel View Post
              Of course legal aid should be made available for illegal evictions. I'm not saying that.

              So, with respect to the first quoted passage above, how exactly do you propose that the rules on provision of legal aid should be changed?
              Health Warning


              I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

              All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

              Comment


              • #8
                Everyone should be entitled to Legal Aid and all charges, if any, should be regulated, same like water rates. A National Health (sry. Legal) Service.
                ASSUME NOTHING - QUESTION EVERYTHING!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Paragon View Post
                  Everyone should be entitled to Legal Aid and all charges, if any, should be regulated, same like water rates. A National Health (sry. Legal) Service.
                  Wow! How many more courts would have to be built if that came in?
                  I offer no guarantee that anything I say is correct. wysiwyg

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by agent46 View Post
                    So, with respect to the first quoted passage above, how exactly do you propose that the rules on provision of legal aid should be changed?
                    If you read my post again, you will see that I myself do not propose any changes.

                    I infer that the (housing) law does not need to be changed, but that the legal aid system may have disadvantaged them, so it may be more relevant to ammend legal aid than change the law. I do not know many facts of the case except that she is extremely upset and feels her experience was unjustified.

                    From reading the linked article, it seems that the LL is complaining about their treatment regarding the whole legal process and the personal risk of financial ruin they took to clear their name, in contrast to the rapist, a criminal who had a huge power to make their life a misery, a very slim chance to gain and nothing else to lose, because he was granted legal aid.

                    Like you say, it could all be a knee jerk reaction. But the public should be reassured that legal aid is spent wisely and not wasted. This sensational story suggests that maybe in this case it was not wisely spent and/or legal aid can put some people at a disadvantage even when they are in the right. There are no enough facts in the article to come to a conclusion in this case.
                    All posts in good faith, but do not rely on them

                    * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *

                    You can search the forums here:

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Paragon View Post
                      Everyone should be entitled to Legal Aid and all charges, if any, should be regulated, same like water rates. A National Health (sry. Legal) Service.
                      How about: so many legal aid points are awarded with National Insurance payments every year. Maybe people can also sell their quota (like milk quota) to the highest bidder.
                      All posts in good faith, but do not rely on them

                      * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *

                      You can search the forums here:

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I've got this vision of Agent having to do 'legal triage' or standing in line to collect tokens from his clients.
                        I offer no guarantee that anything I say is correct. wysiwyg

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bel View Post
                          If you read my post again, you will see that I myself do not propose any changes.
                          That's my point. You suggest, I think, that somehow the provision of legal aid was unjust (towards the LL) in this case in particular, or, perhaps housing cases in general. If you think it is unjust, then please let us hear your proposals for improvement.

                          Originally posted by Bel View Post
                          I infer that the (housing) law does not need to be changed, but that the legal aid system may have disadvantaged them,
                          See above.

                          Who is "them"?


                          Originally posted by Bel View Post
                          so it may be more relevant to ammend legal aid than change the law. I do not know many facts of the case except that she is extremely upset and feels her experience was unjustified.

                          But amend it how?

                          Rather than criticise, suggest a better alternative.

                          Frankly, the landlord's feelings are irrelevant - usually one and often all of the parties to a dispute feel hard done by (landlords seem to have a particular tendency towards self-pity). However, in this country, we (I hope) do not legislate on the basis of one person's feelings. The fact of the matter is that she had a bit of bad luck, this bad luck was compounded by a failure to deal with the matter correctly at first instance, but now, following the appeal, hopefully things have corrected themselves.

                          As for her unrecoverable costs, please see the recent discussions on commercial risk and reward.

                          It seems to me that the landlord probably thought, "He's a rapist and I'm a fine upstanding hairdresser, therefore I'm home and dry" and was shocked to discover that the courts do not try disputes on such a primitive basis. I'd also be very interested to know whether she represented herself, rather than engaging professional representation at the first hearing. It is somewhat jumping to conclusions, and the wording of the article is ambiguous, but the level of her costs ("£5000 before the appeal") could suggest that she was only legally represented for the appeal stages of the case and not at first instance. If that is the case, then she paid dearly for the mistake of representing herself.
                          Health Warning


                          I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

                          All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Paragon View Post
                            Everyone should be entitled to Legal Aid and all charges, if any, should be regulated, same like water rates. A National Health (sry. Legal) Service.
                            That was actually the initial aim of the 1949 Act, but it has never quite lived up to its billing.
                            Health Warning


                            I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

                            All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by agent46 View Post
                              You suggest, I think, that somehow the provision of legal aid was unjust (towards the LL) in this case in particular, or, perhaps housing cases in general. If you think it is unjust, then please let us hear your proposals for improvement.
                              I said I am interested in what the LL and her team have to say about any changes in law or legal aid, as they are the ones who do know the facts of this case, and they just may have a point to make. I could see that potentially the LL had cocked up the repossession process, and the first hearing and paid dearly for her mistake.

                              The main reason for my interest was that I didn't think housing law needed changing from anything I picked up in the article; so what could they propose? So then I thought that maybe it was to do more with the court process and legal aid that maybe they were to take issue with.


                              As a LL, I am naturally interested in court workings regarding LL/tenant issues, and how legal aid works. I would like to know if it is just or unjust.
                              All posts in good faith, but do not rely on them

                              * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *

                              You can search the forums here:

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              • S21 and refunds
                                tatemono
                                Because the poor old OP of THIS THREAD has seen it derailed by a long but nevertheless valid debate/argument/discussion about the interpretation of law, I've started a new thread because the discussion has raised some questions I'd like answers to.

                                Say I have a tenant, whose AST started...
                                18-08-2017, 05:52 AM
                              • Reply to S21 and refunds
                                tatemono
                                well I kind of hoped that the OP would get their thread back if it was rerouted here but I didn't realise that this really only arises where there is disagreement. Plus the debate over there shows no sign of slowing down despite the OP's plea (in post #39 that he's now confused!).

                                Ah w...
                                19-08-2017, 12:15 PM
                              • Reply to S21 and refunds
                                tatemono
                                okay... so if I'd asked them to leave in the middle of the period, then I'd have to refund but my example had them leaving at the end so no refund due....
                                19-08-2017, 11:35 AM
                              • Can Mrs T change locks?
                                Berlingogirl
                                Mr and Mrs T are splitting up. Mrs T is looking for a new place before giving notice to LL. Mrs T is going to give notice to LL then move immediately to new place. Mr T has mental health issues and verbally intimidates and bullies Mrs T so she needs to get out before he can start on her.

                                ...
                                19-08-2017, 07:32 AM
                              • Reply to Can Mrs T change locks?
                                mariner
                                Tenancies don't change just because someone (usually LL) changes the locks.
                                Mrs T needs specialist advice, as does LL if Mrs T explains her dilemma to him.

                                LL could offer Mr T a sole Tenancy after expiry of Mrs T's Notice.
                                19-08-2017, 11:28 AM
                              • Reply to S21 and refunds
                                tatemono
                                My example was hypothetical. Both parties have "plans/wishes" and, feelings aside, there are plenty of reasonable situations where a LL might want to ask a decent T to leave their home.

                                We have two properties where we might have to do this in the next few years. One involves co-ownership...
                                19-08-2017, 11:26 AM
                              • Reply to Can Mrs T change locks?
                                theartfullodger
                                Dunno, apologies, good for you helping. Think she should 'phone Shelter 0808 800 4444, open today
                                19-08-2017, 10:11 AM
                              • Tenants from Council Waiting List
                                wilfred
                                If you get tenants from the council waiting list, and the council pay the monthly rent direct to the LL, when their 12 month tenancy comes to an end, do the council still advise them to remain if the tenant has nowhere else to stay? It would be all the same if the LL wanted to sell the property asa...
                                17-08-2017, 19:40 PM
                              • Reply to Tenants from Council Waiting List
                                wilfred
                                Thanks for clarifying that for me artfullodger, and I didn't know they were homeless people the council asks LLs to house for 12 months.
                                19-08-2017, 10:03 AM
                              • Reply to Can Mrs T change locks?
                                Berlingogirl
                                Artful - It's not that's going to be changing the locks - It's Mrs T.

                                I'm not the landlord in this instance. Sorry, I should have made that clear.

                                Mrs T is concerned that if Mr T remains in the property after the notice period ends she will be responsible for all the ££££...
                                19-08-2017, 08:57 AM
                              Working...
                              X