Undermining the Judicial system

I have been criticized for stating that this country has gone to the dogs and is law happy. And yet everyday I am proven right. I sometimes wonder where do these people come from ?
These legislators, these people that attend committees, and come up with new laws. All the laws have been covered. There are no new topics to legislate for that will add value to our society. Its time to dismantle government and appoint administrators. They would just administer existing laws. No new laws no new powers because there is nothing new happening.

It's An Absolute JOKE - UNFAIR and UNJUST LEGISLATION on the Private Sector, - The same as THE DEPOSIT PROTECTION SERVICE - I had £2,000 of repairs to address burned / damaged carpets / Ripped wallpaper / cleaning / ETC... All the carpets were brand new as was the wallpaper, I put in a claim against the £495 Bond, it went to the DPS to decide, we had pictures of the rooms before and after but they said because we didn't have specific close up photos of before, of the damaged area they would only give us £110 for the cleaning !!! - Who is going to take a photo of every square foot of carpet ??? Whenever we rented a property it was refurbished clean and presentable, we seen a documentary where Bristol council offered a premises to a young mum with black and mould on the walls and offered her £150 towards decorating, - If that had been a private landlord he would have been fined and if he did not correct it - lose his License !!! It is An Absolute Travesty of Justice - A Real Mockery of Fair Proceedings. With HMO and Renting Rules It got to a stage where I was afraid to sneeze or operate because I feared Prosecution / fines !!! - We have recently sold 3 of our properties, we no longer want to endure this nonsense, we were Landlords for 30 years and offered Good, very reasonably priced accommodation to many. We NEVER had a Fine or Prosecution. It is becoming clearly evident that the system is BIASED in favour of Council and Tenants - And For that Reason " We're OUT "

I had a dispute with the DPS regarding close up photos of a broken smoke detector. Did not get a penny for the repair. Argument.
It could be a photo of ANY broken smoke detector. Even though the inventory schedule had a tick against the detector in the room as being in tact.

Thanks - That is Confirmation of their Bias towards the private Landlord

Oh Larry, I do wish that occasionally you would put your brain in gear before writing these articles.
The legislation does not take away your right to a fair trial. If you are innocent, then you do not pay; you take it through the appeals process, just like if you get an incorrect parking fine.
The councils will not issue the penalty notice unless they are confident that they are likely to win in a court of law.
They also should offer the opportunity for a breach to be rectified before imposing a penalty.
The only people likely to have a penalty imposed are bad landlords. Are you complaining because you are one of those?

Oh, and they are not criminal sanctions because you do not get a criminal record.

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 16/03/2018 - 14:13
Michael. I recall you from previous posts. An apologist for local authorities and their excesses. I suggest you put your reading glasses on and revisit the article. The paucity of your argument suggests absolute ignorance or an anti landlord agenda. I will remind you that the sanction is supposed to be imposed to a criminal standard of proof not on the balance of probabilities which applies to non criminal matters. The Councils cannot have it both ways. It is either a criminal matter or a civil matter. If you believe that a proper right of appeal is to the body that issued the penalty then as well as being a Council Lackey, you are also a deluded apologist. You should be aware that licence breaches and breaches of the HA are criminal offences therefore a penalty issued is on the basis that a criminal offence has been comitted.
The very fact that I should have to explain this to you and your dogma defending the Imposition of these sanctions just goes to prove my point. Finally your suggestion that I may be a bad landlord. I wont dignify your slur with a response. You could ask your Council pals however , I am sure they will appraise you . In the meantime the article posted was for the genuine landlords weighed down and burdened with non stop bs legislation.

You just cannot have LA s being judge and jury irrespective of how it is presented. They should be singularly as regulators and in cases of non compliance third party objective courts should be the adjudicators as to the breach if any and punishment if any. End of. Any variation to this and we as the public are well and truly screwed. (My strength of feeling does not allow me to use asterisks)

Reply to the comment left by Larry Sweeney at 16/03/2018 - 16:11
Larry you are so right - I have landlords that have been summoned under criminal prosecution not for environmental conditions in the property but simply because they don’t want to handle paper licensing applications. It’s an abuse of power! As for Michael Barns I hope he is pulled in under criminal caution and responds as if it’s a civil matter.

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 16/03/2018 - 14:13
Michael, you are a fool. But then Larry doesn’t need me to defend him against your nonsense.

Michael sadly you sound like an intelligent individual, but lacking in common sense. Common sense trumps intelligence every time. I mentioned this elsewhere but here it is again - there are 18000 chapters of legislation in this country. Hong Kong in comparison has 5000 chapters. A lesson I learnt at 1st year Uni was that you can be charged with up to 1250 violations the minute you get into your car. These are not part of the 18k I allude to. Think about it, how many moving or otherwise parts, standards, conditions etc are in your car you are responsible for.
What protects us from the hysterical law making factory is an independent judiciary.
It seems the obvious eludes you. Power corrupts individuals as well as organisations unless there are effective checks and balances.