Landlord trying to sue my son

Zandoni

poppysarah wrote: »

Ensure your son leaves the property is a good state. I'd suggest getting photos/vid plus an independent person to verify that the property is a1. Then he can have all his deposit back.

Thanks poppy, it will be in a better condition than when he moved in, so l Hope it's not going to be another battle.

poppysarah

If you he the independent evidence then it'll be easy. the legal thing is separate.

meester

tbs624 wrote: »

Unless you were actually there, how do you know whether it was as you describe?

Have you actually read this thread?

The wording of the claim is in post #10.

It is the work of a ranting moron.

No, Judges base their decisions on the full evidence before them in that specific case and then seek to apply the law as it stands.

Have you read post #10?

It would get laughed out of court.

Have you ever actually seen a completed claim form before, and have any idea what it should like?

The so-called claim is nothing more than the rantings of a jumped-up self-important twit, effectively a nasty letter to the tenant, which, instead of being addressed to him, has been vomited over a court form, thereby wasting my money on an utterly baseless court action.

Your other post has got some rather strange double standards - demonising a LL (all LLs?) whose circumstances are unknown to you as "a greedy BTLer who is overstretched",commenting on some/all LLs/EAs perceived lack of status as "pillars of the community" but then condoning people lying in court?

I'm not quite sure why you are defending this nasty and foolish LL, about whom we have received quite enough information from his so-called 'claim', to judge.

Yawn ...has the T's father mentioned any other repairs issues? Maybe the other property has a different boiler set up? Maybe none of his other tenants have had genuine cause for complaint? Again, you don't know the full circumstances so it's maybe best to stop jumping to the sort of conclusions that a Jeremy Kyle viewer would.

Actually such a laughable attempt at legal action displays all the hallmarks of a Jeremy Kyle viewer - the landlord - abusing the legal system with the ridiculous nonsense about injunctions and the defendant being imprisoned.

The landlord doesn't even know what he is sueing FOR, or indeed whether he actually he has any legal basis for hs action. He is a lunatic.

Neillgb

Having read the thread I have to agree with the posters who see the ll's actions as bullying.

Whilst the MCOL system provides your average Joe with a useful weapon against dodgy companies, mobile phone cashback scams being a good example, it also gives unscrupulous people the opportunity to threaten and bully at a small cost. Many people are intimidated by legal documentation.

As far as i can see the OP's sons 'crime' was to tell the truth in front of the wrong person!!

Hope to hear the outcome of this...

meester

Neillgb wrote: »

Having read the thread I have to agree with the posters who see the ll's actions as bullying.

Whilst the MCOL system provides your average Joe with a useful weapon against dodgy companies, mobile phone cashback scams being a good example, it also gives unscrupulous people the opportunity to threaten and bully at a small cost. Many people are intimidated by legal documentation.

As far as i can see the OP's sons 'crime' was to tell the truth in front of the wrong person!!

Hope to hear the outcome of this...

The OP's son needs to respond within 14 days to the claim. I would respond saying that the claimant has provided no legal basis for action, and that the defendant disputes 100% of the claim. You should receive further documentation after this, and will be able to apply to have the case struck out.

Zandoni

Thanks meester,

Do you think that I should also put the full story of what happened in my sons defence or should that be saved for later. As I understand the MCOL process, it allows the claimant to see the defence so I'm not 100% certain how to play it at this stage.

Incisor

Zandoni wrote: »

Thanks meester,

Do you think that I should also put the full story of what happened in my sons defence or should that be saved for later. As I understand the MCOL process, it allows the claimant to see the defence so I'm not 100% certain how to play it at this stage.

Difficult one. Personally I would be inclined to set down facts about the rental your son has with the plaintiff and state that nothing has been said at variance with those facts. Others may have a different view.

tbs624

meester wrote: »

Have you actually read this thread?

The wording of the claim is in post #10.

It is the work of a ranting moron.

Thanks for responding on behalf of ts_aly2000

meester wrote: »

Have you ever actually seen a completed claim form before, and have any idea what it should like?

:think: ....and :rotfl:

meester wrote: »

The so-called claim is nothing more than the rantings of a jumped-up self-important twit, effectively a nasty letter to the tenant, which, instead of being addressed to him, has been vomited over a court form, thereby wasting my money on an utterly baseless court action.

I think your own phrase “the work of a ranting moron” is a pretty apt description of much of your post(s)

meester wrote: »

I'm not quite sure why you are defending this nasty and foolish LL, about whom we have received quite enough information from his so-called 'claim', to judge……………………………………... He is a lunatic

:rolleyes: Here you go again - do stop making assumptions: it’s not about "defending" an unknown LL - it’s about posters who jump to conclusions after reading a small part of one side of the story.

Whilst I’d agree that on the face of it that the claim may be poorly conceived and the wording of the claim “interesting” (see post 28) let's hope you never get called for jury service.

tbs624

Zandoni - has your son got a current copy of the gas safety certificate for this property?

RabbitMad

Can your son apply to have the case struck out as pre-action protocols have not been followed and also that the case is vetiouxs in nature?