Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Should you represent yourself in court?
Planb has presented the idea that LIPs don't do well, statistically.

In particular, from PT's blog:
"The Judgment should never have been granted, but the client simply was unable to present a convincing argument to the Judge and as a result the client lost. The Client was on a tilted playing field from the start as the barrister the Claimant sent was well versed in Consumer Credit Law but the Client wasnt, it was a case of the Claimant barrister had the Judge eating out of his hand while the Client was simply given short shrift"

LIPs should be warned that presentation is extremely time-consuming.
It should also be remembered that a convincing argument is different from a list of facts, laws and cases.
Knowledge of case law is essential but virtually impossible, even for the judge.

The truth is, you need all the players -
Claimant to stand up for themselves and answer questions.
Defendant likewise.
Solicitor to watch the procedures, papers and forms. Possibly to argue case.
Barrister to present convincing argument FROM laws and facts - and up-to-date case law.
Judge to hand down judgement.
Each player is hindered by having to do the job of any missing player, as well as his own.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Good to hear your eviction has been stayed to at least 1st April ( interesting date :lol: )

Did the circuit judge expand on his view that the possession order may have been awarded erroneously? Whatever his reason he has demonstrated his ability to be objective and all I can say to that is "Respect" :rockon:

Yes, I giggled at the April Fool's Day, to the court clerk (assistant to circuit judge).
No, the CJ didn't say more than 'erroneously'.
However, it was my presentations that resulted in this comment, no lawyer's.
HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA cute little Mohican!!!!
I'M SURE THE CJ WOULD APPRECIATE HIM, GREATLY

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Watch what the court do with your papers
Good God, I've just twigged why they didn't stay the warrant.
It's because the county court did not send it to the appeal court (also a county court).
I know this, because I went through the documents received by the appeal court 2 days ago, with the young lady court clerk.

When the warrant was stayed, the person staying it hadn't even SEEN it, to my knowledge.
(Perhaps they found it had been issued, by looking at the computer record).
They only did so because I said the situation was "outrageous", despite voice being raised at me.
The clerk later rang me and apologised.

I would like to know why said warrant was not sent to an APPEAL court!

[leclerc]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

1st April 2013 is Bank Holiday Monday so there would be no case on that day either since that is Easter Monday.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Strange facts
1. DJ trying my case told me "4" times in advance I wouldn't "win".
2. He told me I had a week to appeal at hardship hearing of 12/12 (=> 19/12) whereas I actually had until 02/01/13.
3. At hearing, he said there was no breach of contract, despite SOC and 1.5" of evidence.
4. He told me 'respect' didn't apply to private tenants.
5. He also told me C could bring a money claim against me! AH HA!!!
6. He also told me the CJ would have "less time than (him) to look at it"
7. He asked me where I had read about 'implied repeal', and even though I answered this time-wasting nonsense, he remained silent about the fact that s21 HA 1988 has been twice impliedly repealed: by HRA 1998, in late 2000, and by the Magna Carta 1225, s29, in 2002. When I asked him if we were saying that "implied repeal didn't exist", he remained silent. Maybe judges don't like intelligent applicants. He also dismissed many other serious legal arguments, out of hand.
8. He told me I had 14 days to appeal judgement of 23/01/13, whereas it was 21.
9. After judgement, my papers went back to him and lingered there for 2 days, even though this was starting at 21-day mark.
10. Warrant was not sent to appeal court.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

1st April 2013 is Bank Holiday Monday so there would be no case on that day either since that is Easter Monday.

LOL!
Yes, thankyou, leclerc.
They're not planning a hearing that day.
It's a renewed possession date pending an oral hearing to seek permission to appeal.
Or, the case could be sent back down to DJ level.

However, I just realised, they're saying it could be a couple of months till an oral hearing for permission to appeal, and we will be out of time around end of May 2013. We may need to shift track (this case is on the fast track).

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Letting agent gives in, partially

Meantime, the letting agent have received the 32nd presentation of the complaint first presented in Dec 2010.
It now includes a complaint of infringement of my basic human rights.

Some 3.5 hours after receiving the complaint, the letting agent have asked for a date and time to 'attend to inspect the property and make note of all required repairs so the necessary works can be carried out'.

9 months later, the wardrobe gets mended

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Seeking a change in the law
Informed the solicitor today that I'm seeking a change in the law.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Agent visit
Letting agent visited today under instructions from landlord to do repairs 'essential to my well-being and safety'. He decided these should be the sliding door that's been waiting 9 months and the front door deadlock, which has been waiting 34 months.
There seems to have been a change in the story since I was accused of doing 'malicious damage' to the sliding door. It was seen that a 1.5mm wing of plastic, from which it hung, had snapped. This is a bi-fold door where the tracking was warped. No accusations of malicious damage were made on this occasion.

I invited the agent beforehand to attempt to sort out the 'complex situation we find ourselves in', but he declined, for now. He felt it might be more 'pertinent', later. However, I did mention during the visit that I felt the laws governing tenancies were an issue, and that I would be looking to the barrister assessing my case for advice in that area.

[PlanB]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

There's a bit of me which wonders whether the agent is part responsible (morally but not legally) for your current legal situation in regards to your counterclaim (or was it your reasons for withholding rent?). Did you previously say that your Landlord lived abroad or am I imagining that? Because although the Landlord is ultimately responsible for all things legal, if the agent was 'contracted' by the Landlord then this may be relevant. You'll have to ask PT about Part 20 claimants/defendants because I'm not clear on this legal twist.

[PlanB]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

There's a bit of me which wonders whether the agent is part responsible (morally but not legally) for your current legal situation in regards to your counterclaim (or was it your reasons for withholding rent?). Did you previously say that your Landlord lived abroad or am I imagining that? Because although the Landlord is ultimately responsible for all things legal, if the agent was 'contracted' by the Landlord then this may be relevant. You'll have to ask PT about Part 20 claimants/defendants because I'm not clear on this legal twist.

I should probably have said that you may have missed the boat with this Part 20 legal option since you've finished with the county court stage and can only appeal on the DJ's legal errors What I don't know is whether you can subsequently take the agent to court for its misdemeanors or in the very least get The Property Ombudsman to investigate. A lot will depend on what Ts & Cs you signed with the agent (breach of contract possibility?) and whether your AST said it was a "managed" property etc.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

There's a bit of me which wonders whether the agent is part responsible (morally but not legally) for your current legal situation in regards to your counterclaim (or was it your reasons for withholding rent?). Did you previously say that your Landlord lived abroad or am I imagining that? Because although the Landlord is ultimately responsible for all things legal, if the agent was 'contracted' by the Landlord then this may be relevant. You'll have to ask PT about Part 20 claimants/defendants because I'm not clear on this legal twist.

Thanks for your comment, planb.
The agent has responsibility, although they occasionally say they are acting under the landlord's instructions.
I've already commented multiple times on why rent was withheld.
The landlord lives abroad.
Thanks for part 20, I haven't seen it before. I can probably grasp it now I know where it is.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'this legal twist'.
I believe the landlord to have vicarious liability for the actions of the agent.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

I should probably have said that you may have missed the boat with this Part 20 legal option since you've finished with the county court stage and can only appeal on the DJ's legal errors What I don't know is whether you can subsequently take the agent to court for its misdemeanors or in the very least get The Property Ombudsman to investigate. A lot will depend on what Ts & Cs you signed with the agent (breach of contract possibility?) and whether your AST said it was a "managed" property etc.

Yes, the solicitor is doing this work, but I'm following your comments carefully.
The case may get sent back down.
I commented above on liability.
It doesn't really matter, if you think about it, whether anyone stated in writing that the property is 'managed'.
Landlords always manage their properties. Tenants do not - unless by express agreement, which was absent.
The other issue was repeated threats to tenure, which in any case is virtually absent in the AST.
This is why the laws are also an issue.
It appears there may have been an issue with the courts.

[UnitedFront]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Strange facts
1. DJ trying my case told me "4" times in advance I wouldn't "win".
2. He told me I had a week to appeal at hardship hearing of 12/12 (=> 19/12) whereas I actually had until 02/01/13.
3. At hearing, he said there was no breach of contract, despite SOC and 1.5" of evidence.
4. He told me 'respect' didn't apply to private tenants.
5. He also told me C could bring a money claim against me! AH HA!!!
6. He also told me the CJ would have "less time than (him) to look at it"
7. He asked me where I had read about 'implied repeal', and even though I answered this time-wasting nonsense, he remained silent about the fact that s21 HA 1988 has been twice impliedly repealed: by HRA 1998, in late 2000, and by the Magna Carta 1225, s29, in 2002. When I asked him if we were saying that "implied repeal didn't exist", he remained silent. Maybe judges don't like intelligent applicants. He also dismissed many other serious legal arguments, out of hand.
8. He told me I had 14 days to appeal judgement of 23/01/13, whereas it was 21.
9. After judgement, my papers went back to him and lingered there for 2 days, even though this was starting at 21-day mark.
10. Warrant was not sent to appeal court.

Where did you get 2002 from? Also, although the Magna Carta might have been first issued in 1225, that version hasn't been in force in any way shape or form for hundreds of years. I think you mean the Magna Carta 1297, s.29.

Even then, it does not apply to your case. Effectively you are just wasting time. I would be willing to bet money that your appeal will fail and your eviction will go ahead. The reason is simple; the law you are quoting has no application to your case. End of story.

XXIX. Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.
NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

You are not being imprisoned. You are not having your Freehold taken away from you - because you don't own any Freehold, your Landlord does. You are not being outlawed or exiled or in any other way destroyed. You are being judged in accordance with the Laws of the land, which is basically what s.29 Magna Carta was all about.

You talk about implied repeal - the doctrine of implied repeal says that a later Act will impliedly repeal any earlier Act with which it is inconsistent. To this end, how do you think that a twentieth century Act cannot impliedly repeal the Magna Carta?

With the greatest of respect for your efforts, your case is nothing short of a joke.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

UnitedFront, it does not seem to me you are actually inviting my comments.
I wish you well.
UPDATE: this comment (#44) does actually raise issues of what the position of a person is, exactly, under an AST.
I'm not talking about the issues raised in #44.