We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Landlady ordered to pay damages to serial rapist for clearing his flat after arrest
Comments
-
Jesus you don't get it do you.......why should a person be given rights when he decided that he doesn't have to apply those same rights you or i have.
Because we live in a civilised society....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
How is it perverted??
she didn't confiscate it she put it in storage......or is it ok for her to lose any rent coming in??? and MAYBE lose the house?? thats ok that is in your eyes
She broke the law herself - an unlawful eviction. Should she be struck off the "entitled to human rights" list herself?Did you know a burglar can SUE you if he is injured while burglaring your house........thats what HUMAN RIGHTS has done to this so called Justice system
Eh? In what sense can a burglar sue (successfully) for injuring himself? Under what provision of the Human Rights Act 1998, or European Convention on Human Rights? Missed the provision myself, so please do point it out.
Infact as soon as he was found guilty he should have had everything he owns sold and any money made given to his victim[/quote]...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
How am i the one looking stupid here?? your the idiot trying to defend a (CONVICTED AT THAT) rapists actions!!! (oh sorry his rights)
No-one is trying to defend the rapist's actions. But you are trying to defend the landlady's unlawful actions.
Sounds as if it's you who want criminals to have rights.....
...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
paddy's_mum wrote: »and my feeling is that the CPS were entirely mistaken to fund (at our expense, mark you!) this legal attack upon a woman whom I assume was just trying to make the best of a vomit making and obnoxious situation. (My assumption, before I am leapt on!)
The sheer level of ignorance in this thread is just quite astonishing.
The original article was about a civil action in the County Court. So just where in hell does the CPS ("Crown Prosecution Service"), you know, that lot who prosecute in the criminal courts, come into your rant?
The only thing the CPS would have done in this case is prosecute him for rape!...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
paddy's_mum wrote: »It is interesting to read (in the Crawley Observer) that the landlord is facing "financial ruin" as a result of this particular case. She has already been ordered to pay Cope £750, plus her own legal costs of £5k and an estimated (up to) £13k of legal costs for her former tenant
Right, so minimal damages for an unlawful eviction. She chose to fight it, instead of settling it, more fool her....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
I agree with Never despair girl. She should have offered a settlement eary in the case. Had see offered £751 her total bill now would only be £750 and us mugs would be picking up the legal bit (from what I understand of the legal system)
Plus for £3.5 K (her legal costs) she could have had him taken care of in prison. There are plenty of lifers who would happily have done the !!!!!! in for £3k for their family.0 -
You have to separate the two issues here, you really do - unless you are an avid Daily Mail reader and are maybe incapable of doing so.
According to the reports in the local papers, the LL had gained access to the flat after repeatedly failing to make contact with the tenant - she found a letter from his solicitor, whom she then contacted. She was told that he’d committed a serious offence, so decided to clear Cope's possessions from the flat and put them into storage two weeks' later.
The LL apparently lets 2 properties, so has 2 very good reasons to keep up with LL & T law. There are specific rules on tenant abandonment of a rented property and any LL who fails to take proper legal advice before acting in these circumstances is an absolute fool IMO. However repugnant the tenant’s own criminal actions were, a LL cannot, and must not, take the law into his/her own hands.
Regardless of whether the tenant was in custody, a tenancy at the property still existed and the LL should have regained possession correctly via the County Court.
Most people would identify with the LL being upset by the circumstances around all of this but the LL made a serious error of judgement IMO, especially when she knew that the tenant already had a solicitor acting for him on the criminal charges. If she had sought appropriate advice from a solicitor of her own, or from one of the national LL associations, she could have been talked through the correct procedure to regain possession and safeguarded herself.
Maybe the profile of this case will quieten down those on this board who advise amateur LLs to simply throw troublesome tenants’ belongings out and change the locks0 -
paddy's_mum wrote: »I am also utterly in agreement with the comment (again, sorry, can't recall who) that if it was your daughter, or mother, or a loved one who had been the VICTIM of a nasty crime, you too would be hard pressed to hang on to notions of 'rule of law', 'do the right thing', 'the mills of God grind slow', in your anger against the betrayal and your loathing of the perpetrator.
Yes, you would. Being the victim or a close relative would definintely give you a different perspective.
But so would being or being the relative of someone who was the victim of mob violence, or wrongly convicted of something and spending decades in prison for a crime not committed.
That's why we have an impartial justice system. To avoid seeing it entirely from one person's point of view....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
neverdespairgirl is quite right to correct my mistaken use of "CPS". Since I'm not usually guilty of "sheer ignorance", I do understand exactly what it means and what that body does. Please consider it as a 'slip of the tongue' since in post number 39, I used the accurate and considered term "public funds"
I'm sure we can all see that this was an illegal eviction and in the cold light of day, can only agree that court action is the way that 'civilised societies' deal with such issues.
However, doesn't there come a time when commonsense can be applied to a situation in which passions can be expected to run very high? Would Cope's solicitor have done a better job if he had tried to negotiate a settlement figure (not that I know if he did or not) or was this a full on "we're gonna get you, landlord"!
I also believe that this landlord was placed in an impossible situation. How was Cope going to continue to pay his rent, since it can take many months to go through the remand period to trial. Do prisoners (whether remand or convicted) still receive wages from a job that they are no longer able to do? Job Seekers? Sick pay? Is Housing Benefit still paid if you are no longer living in a place?
I also bear in mind that the landlord had no way of communicating with the tenant unless he took steps to contact her. She was not in a position to go and see him unless he allowed it - not likely to be his most important thought at the time, in my view.
My feeling is that this landlord was going to be damned if she did and damned if she didn't. In her shoes, since I doubt she was running the property as a charity venture for recidivists, I too might have taken practical steps to get this creature out of my property and my life. I accept that to do so would be unlawful but in this particular set of circumstances, I feel that she is being unjustly viewed as a criminal.
That she was foolish, shortsighted or mistaken, I agree but I also find her conduct very human and entirely understandable. Which of us hasn't made a slip that could land us in hot water?0 -
The matter would not have reached court without an opportunity for the LL to reach a prior agreement. As Neverdespairgirl said, she could have offered early settlement.paddy's_mum wrote: »...
However, doesn't there come a time when commonsense can be applied to a situation in which passions can be expected to run very high? Would Cope's solicitor have done a better job if he had tried to negotiate a settlement figure (not that I know if he did or not) or was this a full on "we're gonna get you, landlord"!
It really doesn't matter why a tenant may not be able to pay rent - you *have* to work within the law. You can't say that its okay to chuck out some people but not others - the law applies across the boardpaddy's_mum wrote: »I also believe that this landlord was placed in an impossible situation. How was Cope going to continue to pay his rent, since it can take many months to go through the remand period to trial. Do prisoners (whether remand or convicted) still receive wages from a job that they are no longer able to do? Job Seekers? Sick pay? Is Housing Benefit still paid if you are no longer living in a place?
She had Cope's solicitor's contact info: she could and should have sent any queries via him/her.paddy's_mum wrote: »I also bear in mind that the landlord had no way of communicating with the tenant unless he took steps to contact her. She was not in a position to go and see him unless he allowed it - not likely to be his most important thought at the time, in my view.
No but she is/was letting property as a business and in business you *have* to have provision for rental voids - if you can't do that then steer clear of property rentals.paddy's_mum wrote: »My feeling is that this landlord was going to be damned if she did and damned if she didn't. In her shoes, since I doubt she was running the property as a charity venture for recidivists, I too might have taken practical steps to get this creature out of my property and my life.
The criminal courts see their fair share of people who have would come under that description too, but the legal system can't be a woolworth's pick and mix.paddy's_mum wrote: »That she was foolish, shortsighted or mistaken, I agree but I also find her conduct very human and entirely understandable. Which of us hasn't made a slip that could land us in hot water?
Do we say that anyone who gets taken into custody should lose their home without due process or do we decide that some crimes are below a certain measure of repugnance and so those labelled as lesser criminals get to keep their homes, or do we say that the laws on illegal eviction were long fought for and need to be safeguarded for all tenants, not just those that you or I or society in general may like & view as deserving?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards