Wednesday 15 October 2014 12.13pm
Gavin Smith wrote:
Johnnytee, that's a very unkind thing to say. If you were to be down on your luck, you too would be entitled to housing benefit.
You obviously haven't bothered to read the judgment properly. You say "could be incompetence, could be malice, it isn't clear". Well, it is clear: for "misfeasance", a word with which you may not be familiar, to be made out, the acts must be wilful. By its judgment, the court has found that to be made out.
"Down on your luck" for twenty plus years? That's some unlucky streak.
Yes, the council employees were deservedly dealt with but it would have been a much better story if the complainant had actually contributed something to this society during his life here.
This is an example where there should be some sort of payout but the ridiculous amount claimed is typical of the litigious country we have become, where afternoon T.V is stuff full of ads for "no win, no fee" lawyers and people whingeing about everything and anything to try and get some money.