Whereas the statute is not designed to protect you from being refused a tenancy because you only want it for a short period. The statute simply means if you get a tenancy you can’t be held to it for more than a short period.
December 4, 2025 at 8:32 AM
Whereas the statute is not designed to protect you from being refused a tenancy because you only want it for a short period. The statute simply means if you get a tenancy you can’t be held to it for more than a short period.
and will be terminated on much shorter notice, that looks like fraud. Cf. if I ask you if you are on social security or have children and you lie, where I think there would be no claim, because the statute is designed to protect you from being refused the tenancy on that basis.
December 4, 2025 at 8:32 AM
and will be terminated on much shorter notice, that looks like fraud. Cf. if I ask you if you are on social security or have children and you lie, where I think there would be no claim, because the statute is designed to protect you from being refused the tenancy on that basis.
This is all purely academic, but it isn’t about them agreeing to anything, because the law doesn’t permit them to agree to such things. But it doesn’t even require agreement - if I represent my present intention is to stay somewhere for a year to induce you to grant me a right that can…
December 4, 2025 at 8:32 AM
This is all purely academic, but it isn’t about them agreeing to anything, because the law doesn’t permit them to agree to such things. But it doesn’t even require agreement - if I represent my present intention is to stay somewhere for a year to induce you to grant me a right that can…
Right - the people who actually administer juries are not, to the best of my knowledge, unpaid volunteers (not that juries are volunteers of course)
December 3, 2025 at 10:23 PM
Right - the people who actually administer juries are not, to the best of my knowledge, unpaid volunteers (not that juries are volunteers of course)
Again, I know it’s received wisdom on here that landlords have an unlimited capacity and willingness to suck things up, and if so then I guess it will all be fine.
December 3, 2025 at 10:20 PM
Again, I know it’s received wisdom on here that landlords have an unlimited capacity and willingness to suck things up, and if so then I guess it will all be fine.
My point is that I suspect a lot of landlords will be coming up with ways to try to ensure they get long term tenants. That may include refusing to let to people who they are in any way unsure about staying.
December 3, 2025 at 10:18 PM
My point is that I suspect a lot of landlords will be coming up with ways to try to ensure they get long term tenants. That may include refusing to let to people who they are in any way unsure about staying.
I think you could in principle win in deceit by saying that you wouldnt have rented the property at all, but as I say, I think this will just be a source of threats rather than any actual legal action.
December 3, 2025 at 10:17 PM
I think you could in principle win in deceit by saying that you wouldnt have rented the property at all, but as I say, I think this will just be a source of threats rather than any actual legal action.
The underlying post says that tenants are being ”encouraged to lie”. Will they get anywhere in court? Unlikely absent a tenant making a silly admission. Will it put pressure on people to stay in their tenancies? I suspect it will.
December 3, 2025 at 10:16 PM
The underlying post says that tenants are being ”encouraged to lie”. Will they get anywhere in court? Unlikely absent a tenant making a silly admission. Will it put pressure on people to stay in their tenancies? I suspect it will.
...if tenants respond to a question about their plans that they intend to stay for a year and leave after six months.
Fundementally, most landlords don't want to re-let a property every six months for understandable reasons. So I expect this will be a running battle.
Fundementally, most landlords don't want to re-let a property every six months for understandable reasons. So I expect this will be a running battle.
December 3, 2025 at 8:18 PM
...if tenants respond to a question about their plans that they intend to stay for a year and leave after six months.
Fundementally, most landlords don't want to re-let a property every six months for understandable reasons. So I expect this will be a running battle.
Fundementally, most landlords don't want to re-let a property every six months for understandable reasons. So I expect this will be a running battle.
I don't think the Act prohibits not renting to someone on the basis that they only intend to stay in the property for a short period of time? Obviously tenants should not be misled that these kind of statements are contractually binding, but I expect dishonesty allegations will be made...
December 3, 2025 at 8:18 PM
I don't think the Act prohibits not renting to someone on the basis that they only intend to stay in the property for a short period of time? Obviously tenants should not be misled that these kind of statements are contractually binding, but I expect dishonesty allegations will be made...
I don't think anyone is fooled into thinking that the local application of EU laws is in fact perfectly consistent in both e.g Berlin and Bucherest.
December 3, 2025 at 12:18 PM
I don't think anyone is fooled into thinking that the local application of EU laws is in fact perfectly consistent in both e.g Berlin and Bucherest.
There does seem to be little legal or logical reason why the UK could not have something similar to the EFTA Court which overseas the EEA agreement. The objection is political, not legal or logical.
December 3, 2025 at 12:14 PM
There does seem to be little legal or logical reason why the UK could not have something similar to the EFTA Court which overseas the EEA agreement. The objection is political, not legal or logical.
I don’t doubt that people on the other side of this debate are arguing in good faith, but I think some of the arguments made are remarkably bold.
December 3, 2025 at 8:53 AM
I don’t doubt that people on the other side of this debate are arguing in good faith, but I think some of the arguments made are remarkably bold.
All ”really” does in my question is emphasise that I want to know if you would accept what appears to me to be logical conclusion of your very bold initial statement. I am sorry that you perceive it as a personal attack equivalent to “honestly”.
December 3, 2025 at 8:51 AM
All ”really” does in my question is emphasise that I want to know if you would accept what appears to me to be logical conclusion of your very bold initial statement. I am sorry that you perceive it as a personal attack equivalent to “honestly”.
If an offence under the Juries Act to evince an intention to try a case other than on the evidence. But it wouldn’t be prosecuted if that intention was evinced in the jury room.
December 2, 2025 at 8:00 PM
If an offence under the Juries Act to evince an intention to try a case other than on the evidence. But it wouldn’t be prosecuted if that intention was evinced in the jury room.
Does the law apply to everyone, or does it only apply to those whose motivations or cause is not popular with the public or a large enough section thereof?
December 2, 2025 at 7:43 PM
Does the law apply to everyone, or does it only apply to those whose motivations or cause is not popular with the public or a large enough section thereof?
Or what about the habit of juries in the Jim Crow South refusing to convict lynch mobs of murder? What bad rule was in play there?
December 2, 2025 at 7:38 PM
Or what about the habit of juries in the Jim Crow South refusing to convict lynch mobs of murder? What bad rule was in play there?
What bad rule do you think was in play in the Colston case? The rule that you can’t just destroy property? Or that it applies generally rather than only to property that right on people approve of?
December 2, 2025 at 7:34 PM
What bad rule do you think was in play in the Colston case? The rule that you can’t just destroy property? Or that it applies generally rather than only to property that right on people approve of?
Do you really believe that Germany or Sweden or the Netherlands have illiberal justice systems? Should we be refusing to extradite people to these countries?
December 2, 2025 at 8:46 AM
Do you really believe that Germany or Sweden or the Netherlands have illiberal justice systems? Should we be refusing to extradite people to these countries?
5, 10 and 13 are exactly the kind of complexity that Leveson has pointed out make it impossible to go back to the way things were in the 80s and 90s, where Crown Court trials were turned round more quickly at the expense of proper disclosure, sexual offence victims and vulnerable witnesses.
December 2, 2025 at 8:46 AM
5, 10 and 13 are exactly the kind of complexity that Leveson has pointed out make it impossible to go back to the way things were in the 80s and 90s, where Crown Court trials were turned round more quickly at the expense of proper disclosure, sexual offence victims and vulnerable witnesses.
but using "indepdendence" as a shield in respect of unpopular clients or political criticism. People aren't stupid and they currently see independence as a fig leaf. I was pleased to see the head of the Faculty the Bar Council recently pointing out that this was a problem, but more needs to be done.
December 1, 2025 at 4:10 PM
but using "indepdendence" as a shield in respect of unpopular clients or political criticism. People aren't stupid and they currently see independence as a fig leaf. I was pleased to see the head of the Faculty the Bar Council recently pointing out that this was a problem, but more needs to be done.
Unfortunately this will never stick because every time I open social media I see lawyers saying "so pleased for my client" "we've secured a landmark judgment holding evil corporations to account" etc. Parts of the profession are very good at personally identifying with virtuous clients...
December 1, 2025 at 4:10 PM
Unfortunately this will never stick because every time I open social media I see lawyers saying "so pleased for my client" "we've secured a landmark judgment holding evil corporations to account" etc. Parts of the profession are very good at personally identifying with virtuous clients...
Knowingly using or fraudulently selling, I suppose
December 1, 2025 at 11:22 AM
Knowingly using or fraudulently selling, I suppose