Quote:
Originally Posted by accyman
i cant see in the article if when they say he paid his rent it means he went to work and paid his rent or if he claimed the rent from the council which realisticly woudl mean that everyone else paid his rent and not him
if he was on benefits then the council if notified of his conviction would have stopped the rent been paid but as what quite often happens people go to prison and the rent still gets paid
no matter what the contract says as soon as a person is sent to prison the landlord should be able to throw out the contents of the property after an acceptable amount of time to allow arrangements to be made bythe tennants friends or family to remove the contents but up until conviction no action should be allowed to be made as the accused may be found not guilty
|
You are allowed to do that but you have to seek permission from the court first, which she didn't, hence why she got fined.
It's pretty simple really, she didn't follow standard procedure so she was forced to cough up. The judge couldn't treat the guy like a rapist, he had to treat him like an ordinary citizen and award damages, and the fee's have to be paid by someone and it's also the norm that the losing side pays the fees.
I'm still trying to graps what is unconservative of me agreeing to this case, contract law is centuries old and I am not saying lets be lenient with it, I'm saying keep to it.