Alternative Reality Exists

[KARL]

When individual A removes item X from the individual owner B, without permission or any intention of returning it, that is known as theft. In the public sphere theft is considered unacceptable and the expectation is that the thief should have to bear full responsibility for the theft. Assuming absence of dispute whether the theft took place, the judicial system (i.e. the courts) matches the public view/attitude/perception. The thief (A) can expect to be prosecuted and be ordered to make restitution and/or receive punishment. There is normally no diminished responsibility for the ordinary individual thief, although mental illness and other rare exceptions do crop up – the principle is to start at a point where the thief must accept full responsibility. Similarly, those who breach an established written contact are seen to bear responsibility for the consequences and can expect to have to defend themselves against penalties or consequences of some sort.

 

But the above does not apply to a particular sector of the community when suffering a theft or a breach of contract.

 

In British courts this group is placed in a position of primary responsibility (reverse of above), both in the case when suffering theft and/or breach of contract against them. Even when the thief admits the theft and/or the other individual admits being in breach of contract, British courts turn to the “victim” as the person of principal responsibility and ask him/her to justify any claim against the “offender”.

 

This group who are in this special category within the judicial system are landlords. It is known that tenants can and do avoid the consequences of stealing from and/or damaging the property they have rented and those in clear and undisputed breach of contract can and do avoid any and all adverse consequences for themselves.

The landlord must first replace anything stolen/damaged and/or fully put right any adverse consequences of a breach of contract by the tenant – the landlord must first bring everything to a restored and correct state. If he does not, then the “offender” is absolved of any responsibility. An example would be if the property is trashed by the tenant and he/she fails to meet conditions relating to some distinct contractual clause/requirement and the property is sold in its unrestored state. One might say this is a bit like being guilty until proved innocent except the facts are not at dispute (theft, breach) and proof is not wanting.

 

Landlords therefore do not come under the same treatment by British courts as the rest of the population. The courts do not see anything wrong with this and the practice has perhaps been going on for decades or even centuries. One might give thought to what message goes out to tenants, would be tenants and the public at large. Theft and breach of contract are not only being sanctioned but arguably they are being encouraged by perhaps the most important institutions in the land – so long as landlords are involved on the “victim” side. In the meantime, national culture has landlords as particular hate figures within the us-and-them iconography – perhaps that is the essential explanation of/for the principle.

 

Does anyone here know if this applies to all nations of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, or only some ?

[Old_Geezer]

Any private individual who was renting out a property must surely have seen the light by now and got out of the game. Too much bias for an individual to have to cope with.

[Peter Pedant]

O god - landlord have duties - I dont see they have to replace and repair with the naughty tenants in

and they replace and repair so that the new tenants WANT to rent the place

You can sue in the civil court for their damage and the cost to repair. A waste of time as the  tenants dont have any lu lu

you can get a CCJ if they really get up your nose, which I  have done and then send it to the new landlords.

Police not interested - that's news for you !

One of my neighbours - not  my tenant  - had his kitchen window attacked with a chain-saw - er inter alia. They were looking for his ne-er-do-well son to chop him up or something

and the hello girl at the Nick, ( I kid you nart ( thx to Caine mutiny) - said: "that is landlord damage and civil, apply to him!"

Detective who visited the next day also looking for the son, er did something

[KARL]

Peter, the description is genuine knowledge/experience, not some rumour or hypothetical - tenants are celebrating the fact that landlords are treated as a lesser breed. Cases thrown out. Not everybody is equal under the law.

Does this happen in the whole of the United Kingdom or just part of it ?

[Peter Pedant]

your part only

law of england applies to the rest of us