Landlady ordered to pay damages to serial rapist for clearing his flat after arrest

witches_cauldron

bitsnbytes wrote: »

The problem I have here is that the rapist (most probably) never having done a decent days work in his life and living off tax payers hard earned money has the audacity to claim legal aid to sue someone else.

Why do you assume he has never done a decent day's work in his life? Do you know him personally?

bitsnbytes

witches_cauldron wrote: »

Why do you assume he has never done a decent day's work in his life? Do you know him personally?

I said "most probably". Look at his history, he's been convicted from 1976. Need to read more carefully :rolleyes:

bitsnbytes

tbs624 wrote: »

You're muddling your perspectives.

There is absolutely nothing moral in what you seem to be arguing for, which is in effect a two-tier legal system - one for "good" people, and one for "bad" people.

The LL unlawfully evicted a tenant, contrary to the law. It really is that simple.

Your argument makes perfect sense, yet somehow it all seems wrong to me. Perhaps I'm muddled, but that's the way I feel at the moment.

RabbitMad

What amazes me (apart from the fact this thread is still going) is that nobody has pointed out that the compensation awarded is minimal. £750 is not a lot for an illegal eviction.

I think the thing that "gets" most people is that Cole got Legal aid to sue. As I said before legal aid should only be given to defendants in criminal cases and maybe a small pot that can be allocated to cases in the public interest (just so justice isn't seen as a preserve of the rich.)

daisykinn1

bitsnbytes wrote: »

Understand the post first, I was talking about the rapist and the fact that he got only 4 years and he has served lesser than that. This post had nothing to do with the landlady.
Perhaps you should apply a bit of "common-sense" tbs was talking about before calling other peoples post nonsense

Common sense says this thread is about THE LANDLADY'S mistake!!!! It DOESN'T MATTER what crime he did because this case wasn't about whether he raped a girl or not. He's already been convicted.

Asking someone how they feel if they were raped & about jail time is insane and nothing to do with this board!!!!

Can we get back to house prices and renting now please....?!

bitsnbytes

daisykinn1 wrote: »

Common sense says this thread is about THE LANDLADY'S mistake!!!! It DOESN'T MATTER what crime he did because this case wasn't about whether he raped a girl or not. He's already been convicted.

If your "common sense" says that good for you. And oh BTW, please SHOUT louder I can't hear you :rolleyes:

daisykinn1 wrote: »

Asking someone how they feel if they were raped & about jail time is insane and nothing to do with this board!!!!

Why can't I? If asking such a question is causing you to get bent out of shape, imagine what his victims and their family must be going through? The real question I asked was if she would think a 4 year sentence seemed fair if she was the victim. I personally feel a 4 year sentence (which he did not even complete) seems awfully less to me

lil_me

If in a years time the landlady, who we know nothing about apart from she evicted someone illegally, happened to be jailed for child sex offences, or you found out she's done time in the past for killing/wounding/sexually assaulting someone, would you still be arguing her case? I guess probably not. Like I said what he's done and she's done in the past had no relevance to the case.

chewmylegoff

RabbitMad wrote: »

What amazes me (apart from the fact this thread is still going) is that nobody has pointed out that the compensation awarded is minimal. £750 is not a lot for an illegal eviction.

I think the thing that "gets" most people is that Cole got Legal aid to sue. As I said before legal aid should only be given to defendants in criminal cases and maybe a small pot that can be allocated to cases in the public interest (just so justice isn't seen as a preserve of the rich.)

enforcing the law on an illegal eviction is in the public interest.

unless of course you think it's a good idea to have landlords making the call on whether or not their tenant is worthy of the protection of tenancy laws.

the facts of this case are unsavoury (and frankly on a separate issue from the tenancy issues, as far as i am concerned he can go the gallows for what he has done), but the bottom line is that tenancy law is there for a reason, and the law is rightly not open to the landlord's interpretation of when it might and might not apply.

bitsnbytes

lil_me wrote: »

If in a years time the landlady, who we know nothing about apart from she evicted someone illegally, happened to be jailed for child sex offences, or you found out she's done time in the past for killing/wounding/sexually assaulting someone, would you still be arguing her case? I guess probably not. Like I said what he's done and she's done in the past had no relevance to the case.

Good point :T I guess what's really p!ssed me off (apart from the horrendous crimes he's committed) is the fact he has wasted public funds precious aid when his reason was so obviously bullsh!t. Perhaps he was bored and wanted to have some fun :mad:

ShelfStacker_3

bitsnbytes wrote: »

the fact he has wasted public funds precious aid when his reason was so obviously bullsh!t.

Hardly a fact, because he didn't, because it wasn't, because she BROKE THE LAW.