Conspiracy involving 3 Southwark employees in the housing department.

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next
Current: 1 of 3
Tuesday 14 October 2014 8.47pm
Reported in the Evening Standard today:
"An asylum seeker has won substantial damages after housing officers at Southwark Council conspired to evict him and destroy all of his possessions...The judge said that the starting point was a conspiracy involving three of Southwark's employees in the housing department..."

Evening Standard
Tuesday 14 October 2014 9.15pm
The full judgement is damning, to say the least:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/500.html

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Tuesday 14 October 2014 9.21pm
Well done to AA, who represented himself at a six-day trial and beat them!
Tuesday 14 October 2014 9.31pm
"An asylum seeker" lol he's been here since '85.

Please tell me those three were sacked....
Wednesday 15 October 2014 7.43am
'misfeasance in public office' is a term I will keep in mind. Well done for standing up to them . Shame on Southwark Council
Wednesday 15 October 2014 9.44am
The judgement appears to say LBS carried out the seizure without going through the proper process. Could be imcompetence, or malice, it isn't clear.

Have you nothing to say about this person being on benefits for 20+ years, contributing nothing it appears, and falling into arrears which he failed to pay or keep to agreements made to pay?

*we* pay for the debts incurred by the claimant, and we now pay for the damages incurred by the Council's ill-considered actions.

there is no victory here for anyone.
Wednesday 15 October 2014 9.57am
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.
Wednesday 15 October 2014 10.53am
Not trying to troll (this time, it is not about cycling haha) Gavin. This is a discussion forum, for discussing views of all types, not just the approved ones, yes? Judging people and institutions is what we all do and *should* do.

The Council Officers are in the wrong clearly. I looked it up btw "Misfeasance is the willful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice." So they should have action taken against them, thanks for clearing that up.

On the other issue
1. the claimant appears not to contribute much on the surface, hard to say without more details
2. it has cost us the public a shedload; compassion is nice but it costs money and we are all fighting for those resources
3. I guess if the Council do it properly now he could still be evicted
I still do not see any real winners here.
Wednesday 15 October 2014 11.13am
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.
Wednesday 15 October 2014 11.15am
Johnny, access to justice is something that all citizens have, regardless of one's means. It does cost the public a shedload.

Believe it or not, the public is the winner:

(i) Hopefully the council will have acted to remedy its (illegal) practices, thereby preventing something like this happening again.

(ii) It is better that illegal practices are not swept under the carpet. The claimant in this case has brought attention to his plight and hopefully it will prevent others being similarly treated.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next
Current: 1 of 3

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: