Small Claim agaist me from Ex Landlord called : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

I would like to know if my landlord can claim the following against me:

Rent Arrears - All I owed was a month's rent which the bond covered and she is still in possesion of?

Month's Notice - There is nothing in the contract stating that I needed to give her notice.?

Late Payment Charges - We had agreed with each other with my mum as a witness that I was allowed to pay her when I got paid from work which was always going to be late?

Fridge - This fridge cost £40 and I bought it second hand through the Adtrader and she is now claiming that it was hers and she wanted payment for it?

Could I please get some advice on the above questions and statments please?


-- Gareth Whitcombe (, April 02, 2004


I'll be removing this thread shortly on the grounds that it is not relevant to the site, which is about mortgage repossession and shortfall-related debt rather than landlord and tenancy disputes.

I want to clarify a couple of issues before I do that.

It is not a breach of the Data Protection Act to post the landlord's name and address on this site.

The Home Repossession Page encourages posters to post the names and - where possible - the address of creditors, debt chasers, etc.

Whether the landlord would be hopping mad or not is irrelevant. I strongly discourage posters from taking other people's "hopping madness" into account when they post here. We are not here to mollify creditors, alleged creditors and the like. We are here to identify creditors, debt chasers, to discuss them, to discuss what they do, how they do it and to share what we learn about our rights. Consideration for how mad these people might get obstructs that discussion.

It may well be that there is a separate legal discussion about the level of malice involved in posting this landlord's name and address. But that is a legal discussion, not a legal absolute. This site encourages such discussion to take place for two reasons:

1. openness

2. this area of the law (where privacy butts up against the right to discuss/share personal issues) is not well defined. That this should be clarified by discussion (in the courts/chambers) rather than through legislation is simply a characteristic of England's precedent-based legal system.

-- Lee (, April 02, 2004.


The post is not in contravention of sub-judice rules and is unlikely to be a breach of the Defamation Action 1996 either.

Sub-judice rules restrict what you may say about an ongoing case. They vary according to the type of court involved. They are at their strictest in criminal law cases and at their loosest in civil law cases (as this case is). Sub-judice rules allow you to report the known facts of a civil case and even to add an opinion about an action you feel the public should take (provided you don't incite to violence, etc, which this chap has not done).

Defamation Act 1996. More complex. Again unlikely. He detailed the facts of the case and his view of his own innocence. That's unlikely to be called defamation in normal circumstances but as he has a case against him - public record - it is even less likely to be called defamation. The dispute and the stance of the two sides involved in it are public, factual, and the resolution of the opinion-based differences a civil matter.

The example of calling someone a paedophile does not hold up because paedophilia is a criminal act, not an act that is tried in a civil court.

-- Lee (, April 02, 2004.

Well, I for one would be absolutely hopping mad if my name and address was publicly published in the way you have here - and I, as a landlord would certainly seek advice as to what other legal action I could take against you!!!! Cases like this in the county court are heard privately in judges chambers.

You wanted answers -

Rent arrears - the bond is nothing to do with rent arrears - it is held as a bond. If you have rent arrears, you can be sued for them and the bond can still be retained to cover any damages.

Months notice - you dont say what sort of contract you were on. If you were on a fixed term AST and you left before the fixed term was up, you could be sued for the rent due for the rest of the term if there was no break clause in the agreement.

Late payment charges - depends what was charged and whether or not it is an unfair contract term - you should pay rent on time in accordance with the agreement.

Fridge - if there was a fridge in the property and you replaced it, then she is right to demand payment if there was not a working one left. Otherwise this is down to you proving what you say.

If you have broken the terms of your tenancy and left owing rent arrears (which the bond can possibly be used to set off unless it is claimed for damages etc.) then you are rightly being sued. If your landlord is on the ball, you might expect a further claim for damages due to your publishing her name and address whilst the case is sub-judice.

-- David J. Button (, April 02, 2004.

I am just basically just warning people to saty clear of this person as she will try anything to take you to court.

As for the Tenancy Agreement I was on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy for six months.

-- I dunno (, April 02, 2004.

I fully agree with everything David says.

Placing this ladys name and address details (an individual not a company) on this forum is absolutely disgusting and irresponsible.

I hope for your sake she doesnt get wind of this posting otherwise expect to loose in court as the judge will dim this breach of her rights very dimly.

-- who?? (, April 02, 2004.

Well can anyone now help me on how to remove this posting off this website????


-- Who?????? (, April 02, 2004.

Yes it is very wrong to publish her name, she could also sue you for breach of the Data Protection Act - I would be very upset if my name was published like this, whatever the rights or wrongs of the legal position.

-- Chris (, April 02, 2004.

Ah sod her mate you go for it. She obviously sounds like a nut job an deserves everything she gets. G60 power..............

-- Pretty boy (, April 02, 2004.

Yea mate u go for it!!!! She sounds like a right idiot. Go see ur solicitor and see if u can take her to the cleaner!!!!

-- Whatever!!! (, April 02, 2004.

Lee, you might be right about the fact that putting the landlord's name and address on this website is not a breach of the data protection act, but it is however in contravention of the Defamation Act 1996.

Basically, Gareth has published details of a case that is sub- judice - and I if the named party gets to hear of this, copies the postings and shows it to the district judge at trial, what do you think it will do to his case? It certainly won't do it any good, and is Mrs. Isles is so minded to take out a further action under the DA 1996, I reckon she would win!

I could say you were a paeodophile Lee, falsely of course, and publish your address - what do you think right thinking members of the public would do - be nice to you, or brick your windows etc. This is the sort of thing that COULD happen to Mrs. Isles or any other individual person who is identified on your site by name and address. Apart from that Lee, as site administrator, you may well lay yourself open to legal action as well.

At the very least you should do, immediately remove Mrs. Isles name and address as a courtesy and let the law take its course.

-- David J. Button (, April 02, 2004.

Lee, you still have not removed this lady's name and address from the post headings.

Do you think it is right and proper that a poster should be allowed to publish details of a party's name and address in this way - I certainly do not. I would love to be a fly on the wall when the judge sees what Gareth has done and moreover, what action Mrs.Isles will take when she sees her name and full address (which is correct by the way - I checked it on UK Info 2003) - and personally, I hope she wins a case for defamation. The proper way to resolve disputes is by arbitration or court - not by publishing unilateral arguments on a website which the other party may not be aware of and unable to respond to (until it gets to court of course).

One of you, either Lee or Gareth - have the guts to phone or write to Mrs. Isles and show her these postings - I bet you dare not!!!!!

Lee, I often post on this website and have a high respect for your moderation of it - you seem to be putting up defences as to why it is acceptable to do what Gareth has done - but it is morally, if not illegally wrong - and you know it!!!!!

Tenants are always slagging off landlords - ever since Rachman, and well before him - audi alteram partem - hear the other side - oh sorry, you can't because the other side does not know about this - yet!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- David J. Button (, April 02, 2004.

We could all discuss the legislation on this issue as in these particular circumstances theres not much precedence to clarify.

Its amazing how so many people who visit this site believe the Data Protection Act protects them more than it actually does.

However, an individual person is entitled to some privacy and having your FULL address blasted on a site like this is not very nice.

Some of the immature messages already posted on the link demonstrate this lady is now potentially open to unfriendly post from people who hate landlords!

Lee, im sure that if someone posted your home address on a debt collectors web site you wouldnt like it. Imagine a disgruntled and frustrated fee earner of a debt co knowing where you lived. Do you not think theres a risk of repurcussion?

-- who?? (, April 02, 2004.

I think if you look at the DPA there are many aspects - before this lady's name was removed - that were breached. Company details are a little different to personal details - publishing personal details on a website such as this could have severe consequences. I work quite heavily with the DPA and have seen instances of this being used to protect on issues a lot less severe than this one.

-- Chris (, April 05, 2004.

I would just like to comment on David where he said that the Landlord doesn't know yet!!!! (About these postings i'm guessing)???

Well one word for u and that is why bother mate!!!!???? Its clear that u lanlords all stick together and clearer don't stick to the rules of the law!!! So why should the tenant stick to the rules of the law when it come to dogy landlords like this one and David clearly is????

Its all good and well to post creditors names and address's etc but why not a landlord if she is not guilty of anything that was said originally by Gareth then she won't have anything to worry about will she!!!!

-- H (, April 05, 2004.

Well, - it's one thing to hide behind the anonimity of a hotmail address and slag people off whom you have never met and do not know anything about - and it's quite another to have the guts to publish what you say with your (traceable) proper email address entered.

So you think I am a dodgy landlord do you - and precisely what do you base that on? I think you are a moron, and I base that on your obvious concept that all landlords are dodgy and stick together (your words).

Keep posting drivel like that, and one day somebody will trace you and take you to the cleaners for defamation!

-- David J. Button (, April 05, 2004.


What r u trying to drag me into here????!!!!!

-- Gareth (, April 05, 2004.

I am not trying to drag you into anything Gareth. I was responding to the comments made by the previous poster who apparently thinks all landlords stick together and are dodgy.

I have firmly made the point that to post Mrs. Isles address was wrong - the site moderator has removed that information - obviously in acceptance that I (and the others that agreed with me) were right to protest about this as it was a clear invasion of privacy to which Mrs. Isles is entitled whether she is claimant or defendant and whether or not she is in the right or wrong.

I note you have emailed me privately Gareth - I will not be responding to that email as you can see what is being posted here anyway.

-- David J. Button (, April 05, 2004.


I beleive you are wrong regarding the breach of data protection because: -

Gareth is an indidividual and does not process and hold personal information about his landlord.

The act is for central and local government, charities and companies and not a person who has his landlords contact details.

I beleive David is correct in his opinion of defammation, especially if Gareth is the poster of the message

'I am just basically just warning people to saty clear of this person as she will try anything to take you to court.' -- I dunno (, April 02, 2004.

-- who?? (, April 05, 2004.


Do you really think that this lady should not be advised of these postings?

If you had taken the time to view previous contributions from many people on this site (David included) you would understand that our central purpose is to give people the facts to stop Golliath from winning by default.

Golliath is usually debt recover solicitors or a lender but on this occassion its Gareth who has intentionally or in ignorance has damaged another individuals standing in society without it been proven. (irrespective of their occupation or standing - I would feel the same if this lady was an employee of a debt company!)


Oh by the way I am not a landlord!

-- who?? (, April 05, 2004.


What's done is now done and lets just leave this individual to sit back and think of what he did. The address has now been moved, so can we just leave it at that. Its past news now people!!!!

-- Hi (, April 05, 2004.


You say its past news yet your childish comments were made earlier today which was AFTER the ladies address had already been removed by the sites moderator.

You now realise you have made ridiculous and unfounded comments and would rather we all change the subject than you face constructed critism.

Sounds about right.

-- who?? (, April 05, 2004.

Here Here Who!!

-- Chris (, April 06, 2004.


What if that person who openly reported who his landlord was was an 18 year old which was naieve and didn't understand the consequences???? What if you were in the same position???? I wonder how many people would then be on your side if it was you and not this other person????!!!!

-- Hi (, April 06, 2004.

At 18 you are liable, as an adult, for all your actions and this is what was being pointed out to you. Insults levelled at individuals are not acceptable even as a naive 18 year old.

As has been pointed out people come on here for help when they are in a desperate situation, however as Lee pointed out this site is no good for your circumstances so I think you need to draw a line under this and find people who can aid you in what you need to know.

-- Chris (, April 06, 2004.


In answer to your queries:

When an ADULT causes harassment to another human being should their naivety excuse them from consequences, I myself do not believe so.

I would never be in this position I assure you. Since 18 I have never been that naïve and besides my CONSCIENCE would never ever permit such an action.

I would not expect any person on this site to be ‘on my side’. Really this is quite childish. I would know that I had done a very stupid action with potentially serious consequences and would seek legal advice on how to remedy my foolish behaviour.


Call me suspicious but I believe Gareth posted the subsequent posting in this thread, in reply to David’s critism, under the name of I

I dunno in answer to David said ‘He was warning people to stay clear of this person’ because ‘she will try anything to take you to court’.

And then advised that his ‘Tenancy Agreement was an Assured Short hold Tenancy for six months’, after David had advised that it was dependent on the wording of the agreement.

Why would Idunno have told David about his tenancy agreement if he wasn’t the one and same Gareth?

If is Gareth (the moderator could check) then he was attempting to damage this lady! The court should know his actions and he should face the consequences. I also hope that at some point he will face remorse.

If I am wrong (the moderator can check) I profussely apologise, however, I would make one final point for you to think about - If contributors of this site had not pointed this out this link would have remained and within a week web search engines such as google would have cached this ladies name and address for years!!!

-- who?? (, April 06, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ