Shelter’s Head of Research misled public on TV

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 16/10/2018 - 14:23
Tortious Interference is :
A common law tort claim that a defendant intentionally convinced or caused a third party to breach its contract with the plaintiff which resulted in damages to the plaintiff.
The elements of the tort can vary but generally include the following:
The existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party.
Knowledge of that contract by the defendant.
Intent of the defendant to induce the third party to breach the contract with the plaintiff.
Lack of any justification for the defendant to induce such a breach.
Damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach.
The defendant can be liable for the damages caused by its tortious interference.
So how would you define the advice to stop paying rental during the eviction process?
And this advice is given with the deliberate intention of "thieving" from the landlord.
I don't accept your comparison.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 16/10/2018 - 13:14
Precisely what do you disagree with?

Reply to the comment left by Luk Udav at 16/10/2018 - 14:34
What deliberate misinterpretation are you referring to?

Reply to the comment left by Appalled Landlord at 16/10/2018 - 15:12
I'm referrring to the whole series of posts about Shelter. But let me take this: "She said “people don’t have the stability at the moment, they can be chucked out by their landlords at a moment’s notice”.
It's patently clear what she meant, and to pretend otherwise is just silly.

Thanks Luke and Richard. Seething landlord is talking rubbish. We certainly will not be taking the kind of pussyfooting approach he advocates. The best advise I could give to seething landlord would be to get a job at Shelter where he can fawn at their feet every day. I have never read such complete tosh from someone who claims to be a landlord. Richard we are doing well with the pledges, but as you rightly point on considering the 30k reads we should have many more. The determination and dedication to our industry shown by those who have pledged is heartening.

Reply to the comment left by DALE ROBERTS at 16/10/2018 - 14:37
That is the first mention of the tenant being advised to stop paying rent, which is quite different from advice to stay in situ. If that was the advice given I am surprised, especially if the tenant was still receiving housing benefit. However, even if that were the case I suspect that you might have difficulty in proving it. And who are you going to sue? The individual will deny giving the advice, the Council will say that even if he did he was not acting in the course of his employment so they are not liable. The tenant will either disappear without trace or refuse to assist in any way, so what are you left with? Probably another dose of financial loss and misery to add to what you have already suffered. I doubt if any lawyer would advise you to proceed.

Having re read Seething Landlords post, he draws a comparison between companies failing to pay suppliers and landlords getting shafted by tenants.
I have some news for seething landlord. Forget about rogue landlords. There are far more rogue tenants.
As regards your comment about our agressive approach, i wish to thank you for that . It is the only accurate statement that you have made and it is a compliment.

Reply to the comment left by Larry Sweeney at 16/10/2018 - 15:20Larry, your reply is the final confirmation that the new alliance is not for me, but I wish you well and hope that you achieve more than I suspect you will. You really will need to get used to the idea that reasoned argument demands a reasoned response rather than dismissing it as a load of tosh. Be assured that I am a landlord, I'm not clear why you should doubt that unless as I have said before you believe that we should all have the same mindset as you.

Reply to the comment left by Larry Sweeney at 16/10/2018 - 01:13
No Larry, I have not pledged and for the following reasons. I do not wish to be associated with the proposed aggressive stance of the organisation, which is in danger of lowering itself to the level of those who hurl vile abuse at landlords and alienating some who might otherwise support our position. I think your association needs to have some sort of legally qualified person on board because it seems to me that at times you sail close to the wind with your statements; though not myself on any social media I have seen some of your postings. I also think that you need a more professional approach and a literate person to proofread your postings as you are in danger of leaving the association open to ridicule as a landlords' group who can't even spell "accommodation" and don't know the difference between ferment and foment; (something you since seem to have learnt). I am happy with my membership of the RLA which I find a very professional body with a great deal of experience and access to government, and I learn a great deal from their research which is used to lobby government departments behind the scenes with evidential backup. I can fully understand your frustration with their involvement with the Liverpool licensing fiasco and I admire you for your persistence in fighting its excesses. Please understand that I bear you no personal animosity and share your frustration with all the totally counter-productive moves against landlords in recent years. I sometimes think the officers of Shelter won't be satisfied until there are no more tenants for them to represent because there are no more private landlords left.

If Seething Landlord does not seethe about Shelter I wonder what he/she does seethe about?