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

bitsnbytes

ShelfStacker wrote: »

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

Sheesh, I never denied that she broke the law and I'd be perfectly happy if he paid for the lawyers from his pocket and won. :rolleyes:
Are you seriously saying his reason for suing her was valid? He had problems with his wife because she put his stuff into storage? That's the only reason for the problems between him and his wife? And you really believe that he didn't waste public funds suing this woman? :rotfl:
What's he going to do with the money he receives anyway? Save it to buy more wired mice to tie up his victims? :mad:
Keep shouting louder, perhaps you might convince yourself

Meatballs

As she lost the case, she has to pay his legal fees so it didn't cost the taxpayer anything in actual legal aid?

Hohum

chewmylegoff

bitsnbytes wrote: »

Sheesh, I never denied that she broke the law and I'd be perfectly happy if he paid for the lawyers from his pocket and won. :rolleyes:
Are you seriously saying his reason for suing her was valid? He had problems with his wife because she put his stuff into storage? That's the only reason for the problems between him and his wife? And you really believe that he didn't waste public funds suing this woman? :rotfl:
What's he going to do with the money he receives anyway? Save it to buy more wired mice to tie up his victims? :mad:
Keep shouting louder, perhaps you might convince yourself

his reason for suing her was that she unlawfully evicted him. the comment he made about his wife has nowt to do with anything really.

RabbitMad

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

While an illegal eviction might be in the public interest usually, the facts in this case mean it wouldn't have been. Rapist was on remand - would be at least 3 - 4 more months before trial. Had landlady issued section 21 immediately, she could have had a possession hearing before his trial and therefore she would have got her flat back anyway.

chewmylegoff

RabbitMad wrote: »

While an illegal eviction might be in the public interest usually, the facts in this case mean it wouldn't have been.

i don't agree, because you may set a precedent for landlords to chose when tenancy law applies. any old criminal offence would then be cause for eviction.

assault? evicted. drink driving? evicted. didn't pay your council tax? evicted. no train ticket? no house either.

Rapist was on remand - would be at least 3 - 4 more months before trial. Had landlady issued section 21 immediately, she could have had a possession hearing before his trial and therefore she would have got her flat back anyway.

exactly. so there's no excuse for her to take the law into her own hands.

RabbitMad

No I'm actually saying if I ran the country (I'd be a benevolent dictator) a case like this wouldn't have had legal aid as I would have deemed it not in the public interest.

If the rapist had his own cash he could have certainly pursued the illegal eviction case against the LL.

cash99

chewmylegoff wrote: »

his reason for suing her was that she unlawfully evicted him. the comment he made about his wife has nowt to do with anything really.

The action taken against the landlady was to recover damages for the tenant based on the losses / suffering etc. as a consequence of the illegal eviction. The tenant was in jail throughtout the period from eviction to court case, so was not put to the expense of finding alternative accomodation, his property was placed in storage and I expect has now been returned so what loss has the tenant suffered, apart from the "suffering" due to alleged difficulties between him and his wife over the eviction.

This case has no public interest and should never have reached court. If there was a public interest then the landlady should have been prosecuted for the illegal eviction, an entirely separate matter.

Yes the landlady was wrong to evict without following the law, but wasting public money to compensate a serial rapist for hurt feelings is not the appropriate response.

bitsnbytes

cash99 wrote: »

The action taken against the landlady was to recover damages for the tenant based on the losses / suffering etc. as a consequence of the illegal eviction. The tenant was in jail throughtout the period from eviction to court case, so was not put to the expense of finding alternative accomodation, his property was placed in storage and I expect has now been returned so what loss has the tenant suffered, apart from the "suffering" due to alleged difficulties between him and his wife over the eviction.

This case has no public interest and should never have reached court. If there was a public interest then the landlady should have been prosecuted for the illegal eviction, an entirely separate matter.

Yes the landlady was wrong to evict without following the law, but wasting public money to compensate a serial rapist for hurt feelings is not the appropriate response.

My thoughts exactly

Debt_Free_Chick

As mentioned previously in this thread ... somewhere ... the case was brought before the County Court. This governs civil/private rights - so arguments in favour of or against "the public interest" are irrelevant.

This is a civil dispute between two private parties - nothing to do with "the public".

If we are to use the "not in the public interest" argument, then we have to accept that none of us have the right to defer to the Courts for any contractual dispute e.g. disputes under tenancy agreements, the Sale of Goods Act, boundary disputes etc etc

This is nothing to do with the public interest and I'm not convinced that any Public funds were involved. Indeed, the LL has been instructed to pay the (former) tenant's costs i.e. the LL has to pay the fees charged to the tenant by his solicitor.

Is that not the case?

RabbitMad

Debt free chick,

Were now putting the world to rights from our metaphorical bar stool. I've imposed myself as a benevolent dictator and have restricted legal aid in civil cases unless its in the public's interest. I have then stated in this case it wouldn't have been in the public's interest and have had more or less unanimous agreement.

I think its time we all ordered another drink and changed the subject to religion (as after politics religion is the best subject to discuss when drinking!)