Tent thread

dopester wrote: »

It seems the suspicion (Pr1madonna) that it was J.Dunmore who lodged a complaint against the original MSE thread on this discussion was valid. From this it certainly seems to me he made a complaint... although I recall no posts making threats to him at all.

[Edit 08/09/2010. Mr Dumore has contacted me. He asserts that the MSE thread was taken down because it contained personal information about it and, he alleges, threats to him]. That would be Jeremy Dunmore. Mr Dunmore’s twitter page gives as his personal website link a blog by the ‘Ascender Group’. Mr Dumore’s twitter account has many tweets about the Butler ‘campaign’. Mr Dunmore’s public entry on linkedin [just removed, link to cached version] states he is “Founder and Managing Director of Ascender Group“

I think you are giving him more credit than he is due.
Probably veiled attempt to get nearlylegal to pull their thread or modify.

It is all Pr guff.

Most experienced professional people should eventually see through it once they do a little checking.

All the Pr will come to nothing if there is little or no substance.

Pr can only take you so far.
.

Brb wrote: »

More from Tessa

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/09/07/eviction-why-changing-the-law-wont-help-landlords/

At least Tessa Shepperson is continuing to keep the landlord Suzy Butler circumstances in focus - with this update of the 7th September.

I guess the Suzy Butler example could have advantages for her, and other professionals who are there to offer premium services to help protect landlords.

If a greater number of landlords are more likely to pay for her study material/resources/services to better run a watertight ship.

However, in my view, it can't help professional assistance providers when landlords like Suzy Butler openly make a mockery of the law, and even have the media championing the landlord's unlawful actions.

Landlords who have paid for assistance, put the research time in, follow the lawful procedures are more likely to ask themselves... why bother when the risk of consequence is so low. When the media supports Suzy Butler style actions.

Although I'm not overly impressed that a solicitor would write "loose" when she means "lose" grr.

Good find though and she does make a few points of wisdom.

Why changing the law won’t help

Drafting legislation is exceedingly difficult. The draftsman has to consider all possible situations and provide for them in a fair way. ‘Kneejerk’ legislation brought in, in a hurry, as a sop to the public to deal with a perceived injustice, can have unforeseen and unwelcome consequences.


For example I can see a system where landlords can get possession without having to go to court, being welcomed by the criminal landlords with open arms!

There is also this news-blog page from 3rd September, in case it slipped by anyone else, from Ben Reeve-Lewis:

The Suzy Butler case in the news at the moment highlights how little so many amateur landlords know about their legal responsibilities. The fact is even if a landlord lets out only one property, whether to travel abroad or help with finances, the minute they hand over the keys they have in effect started a business and just like any business there is tax to pay, and laws that govern the running of that business.

http://freelegalweb.org/5942/2010/09/landlord%E2%80%99s-addresses-and-other-matters/

Also this in Ben Reeve-Lewis blog article of 3rd September 2010.



http://freelegalweb.org/5942/2010/09/landlord%E2%80%99s-addresses-and-other-matters/

Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 states……

A person commits an offence if………….harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or manner or occasion of their making , or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or his household to alarm, distress or humiliation

I once prosecuted a landlord under this legislation. He was a baker who rented out a flat above his shop. When the tenant owed him rent he placed a poster in the shop window telling all local cake fans that his tenant owed him money.

One of the most common complaints made about landlords by tenants is being harassed for missing rent payments. This is an outrage you may say…..what’s the world coming to?…….That’s as may be, but it is still a law, binding on the landlord, and complaining about its lack of fairness will get you nowhere.

ViolaLass wrote: »

I would love to sign this petition

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/suzybutler

but I really don't like the language used in it. Can't we ask for the law to be enforced in a more dispassionate and less incendiary way?

I agree with you ViolaLass

The petition wording itself could be deemed to be libellous.We may individually view her actions as potentially worthy of court action on criminal charges but publicly describing somone as "criminal" when they have not been convicted (or even charged) is IMO asking for censorship.

Petitions don't get taken seriously if they contain personal abuse - we need to stick to the known facts to gain the maximum amount of support.

IMO, it will be too easy for people to dismiss the opposition to Suzy Butler's behaviour towards her T, if the way in which that opposition is publicly worded is not kept calm and professional.

Ms Butler and Mr Dunmore seem to have learnt the error of rushing out a petition - let's not make the same mistakes.

That's the whole thing john539 - we flagged it up on the first page of the original MSE thread that Suzy Butler could have used a Standard Assured Tenancy and pre-served the relevant Notice. Its apparent omission is one of the most glaring errors in Ms Butlers list of many misunderstanding of the law . She claimed to have sought advice on the tenancy agreement: I do hope she didn't pay good money for the "advice" she received.