Evicting rent defaulters is against their 'umin rights!

Jowo_2

B_Blank wrote: »

Have any of you clowns even read the case in detail (which could take you many hours)? Untill yu have then you really are in no position to comment on this case. Unless of course you just want to read what they tell you in the papers - who all have vested interests in manipulating public opinion.

Why let the facts get in the way of a good lynching I suppose

Must say that I found your analysis of the causes of high rental prices and the origin of the BTL market was very sub-tabloid and knee-jerk.

Put the following words together:-

black pot the calling kettle

evoke

The only people human rights laws have supported are terrorists, illegal immigrants, criminals, benefits scroungers and general scumbags who you wouldn't want to live within 10 miles of. Human rights laws have never, ever supported those who live by decent moral and ethical standards, those who work hard to contribute their fair share to society, those who live within the law and those who take responsibility for their own actions.

That is why human rights laws should be abolished immediately. They represent free money for ambulance-chasing lawyers and the so-called victims who play the system.

DVardysShadow

evoke wrote: »

The only people human rights laws have supported are terrorists, illegal immigrants, criminals, benefits scroungers and general scumbags who you wouldn't want to live within 10 miles of. Human rights laws have never, ever supported those who live by decent moral and ethical standards, those who work hard to contribute their fair share to society, those who live within the law and those who take responsibility for their own actions.

That is why human rights laws should be abolished immediately. They represent free money for ambulance-chasing lawyers and the so-called victims who play the system.

You fool

[STRIKE]Right to life
Prohibition of torture
Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
Right to liberty and security
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Right to respect for private and family life
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry
Right to an effective remedy
Prohibition of discrimination
Prohibition of abuse of rights
Limitation on use of restrictions on rights[/STRIKE]

So, curl up and die, take your torture, become a slave [none of this 'rule Britannia, Britons never never shall be slaves' carp for you], lose your liberty and security, be tried and punished for things which are not crimes, have the state monitor the inside of your home, be made to think what the state tells you to think, be made to worship in the mosque [thought you would like that one]. Don't post here [you are a hypocrite for posting on the internet, BTW], don't meet with more than 2 other people and don't stop to talk to anyone in the street. Give up your partner, accept that all the foreign shop owners can refuse to serve you.

As long as it makes you happy, because at the moment you are a right miserable git.

poppysarah

DVardysShadow wrote: »

despite being themselves responsible for the maladministration which lead to the debt in the first place.

I did think the delay was caused by her not filling in forms correctly.

sonastin

evoke wrote: »

The only people human rights laws have supported are terrorists, illegal immigrants, criminals, benefits scroungers and general scumbags who you wouldn't want to live within 10 miles of. Human rights laws have never, ever supported those who live by decent moral and ethical standards, those who work hard to contribute their fair share to society, those who live within the law and those who take responsibility for their own actions.

That is why human rights laws should be abolished immediately. They represent free money for ambulance-chasing lawyers and the so-called victims who play the system.

So you didn't mind it when the policeman threw you in jail for 7 years because you looked at him funny? What, that didn't happen? Well I think it is highly probable that you might have looked at a policeman funny at some point in your life. So maybe you didn't receive a ridiculously disproportionate punishment for something that's not really a crime because there are laws in this land to protect your right to liberty and security and the right to a fair trial. But hang on, those would be human rights laws. So that must make you a terrorist, illegal immigrant, criminal, benefits scrounger or a general scumbag.

My guess is the last one.

Stop taking your rights for granted or you might just lose them.

evoke

I work in computer and network forensics. If you think the state isn't monitoring your every move online, then you should think otherwise.

This deluded 'freedom' that you enjoy is borne out of the Politics of Fear. It is an imagined freedom. Try to photograph a policeman and see what happens. I rest my case.

I remember the 70s and 80s very well - they were my formative years. I had more freedoms then than I do now.

Do you know how many laws New Labour brought in during their 13-year reign of terror that was bestowed upon the populous of our country? Do you know that the majority of those laws actually curtailed your freedoms?

New Labour brought in 4,289 new laws. And your perception of freedom and liberty is an illusion. New Labour created ogres for you and I to fear. That was done to control you.

DVardysShadow

evoke wrote: »

I work in computer and network forensics. If you think the state isn't monitoring your every move online, then you should think otherwise.

This deluded 'freedom' that you enjoy is borne out of the Politics of Fear. It is an imagined freedom. Try to photograph a policeman and see what happens. I rest my case.

I remember the 70s and 80s very well - they were my formative years. I had more freedoms then than I do now.

Do you know how many laws New Labour brought in during their 13-year reign of terror that was bestowed upon the populous of our country? Do you know that the majority of those laws actually curtailed your freedoms?

New Labour brought in 4,289 new laws. And your perception of freedom and liberty is an illusion. New Labour created ogres for you and I to fear. That was done to control you.

Don't think that I disagree about New Labour for one moment. It is really strange to me that they did actually enshrine the ECHR into UK statute. But that was before they lost control of the media and started controlling the people instead.

I cannot agree with you total rejectionism. The human rights legislation [and the EU, strangely] are about the only things saving us from going completely totalitarian under the tide of half baked propaganda about how wrong human rights are.

Wee_Willy_Harris

poppysarah wrote: »

I did think the delay was caused by her not filling in forms correctly.

It was. But it was the LLs response to that which was the basis of the judgement.

Private LLs can (still) legitimately ignore arrerars until they reach the level needed to evict the tenant, that is the only legal remedy they are held to.

Social Housing landlords, however, have a slightly different remit. Based on the notion of housing by need, secure tenancies, protection from eviction, sustainable communities etc etc etc, they are expected to act "proportionately" when seeking to evict.

This means acting in a far more pro-active way to resolve issues without recourse to the ultimate sanction that is eviction.

This pro-active approach is well tried and well tested with full, secure tenancies. In order to establish sufficient grounds for eviction, a housing provider must show that they have taken "reasonable" steps to prevent the loss of a tenants home. Assisting the tenant (or at least trying to) to get their housing benefits in pay would be a fine example of such assistance.

However, the tenant in this judgement wasn't a full "secure" tenant, she was an "introductory" tenant and, as such, on an AST not a secure tenancy.

Because she wasn't a secure tenant, the provider didn't feel it necessary to assist her in the way they would have had she been so. This, the court decided, rendered their action to evict "disproportionate" and, by example, ensured that introductory tenants are protected from eviction in the same way as secure tenants.

In essence, all this means is that the housing provider must demonstrate that they have taken "proportionate" action to mitigate the reason for eviction prior to taking the case to court. This could mean (in the highlighted case) contacting the tenant, offering support, home visits by the estate officer. If the tenant fails to engage with this assistance, possession will still be granted.

discplayer

evoke wrote: »

I remember the 70s and 80s very well - they were my formative years. I had more freedoms then than I do now.

Do you know how many laws New Labour brought in during their 13-year reign of terror that was bestowed upon the populous of our country? Do you know that the majority of those laws actually curtailed your freedoms?

New Labour brought in 4,289 new laws. And your perception of freedom and liberty is an illusion. New Labour created ogres for you and I to fear. That was done to control you.

I can't disagree with this, although just like we had fewer freedoms at the end of the last decade than ten years earlier we also had fewer freedoms at the end of the 80s than ten years earlier.

It is our great leader's (that's Churchill, not Thatcher or Blair) convention on human rights that prevented the last government banning you from working, forcing you into slave labour or raiding your house and locking you up just because you disagreed with them.

And that's great because in many parts of the world you wouldn't be so lucky!

DVardysShadow

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

... In essence, all this means is that the housing provider must demonstrate that they have taken "proportionate" action to mitigate the reason for eviction prior to taking the case to court. This could mean (in the highlighted case) contacting the tenant, offering support, home visits by the estate officer. If the tenant fails to engage with this assistance, possession will still be granted.

"I tried to get my human rights and all I got was this lousy visit from a housing support officer." It really is not something to get frothed up around the mouth about.