Often in life we hear a story, or read an article, where a point of view is being put forward, as fact. The reader, or listener, is then often asked or expected to do something on the basis of that point of view, which is never questioned.
I call that attitude the ‘we all think’ mindset
I first came across it at University, where my then boyfriend was a bit of a politico. At that time the cause celebre was a campaign to persuade the University to sell shares which had interests in South Africa (this was during apartheid). I think the shares were in Barclays Bank.
The way it went was that there would be a student meeting where various politico types would tell us about the evils of apartheid, the scandal of the University’s ownership of these shares, and the strong need for us all to DO something about it. They would then start to shout and wave their arms about, becoming more and more screechy, until eventually they would have to be carried off, foaming at the mouth, and be revived with tea and biscuits (I made that last bit up).
The upshot was that we would all storm in and occupy the University admin building ‘in protest’. All great fun of course but totally pointless, as the only real outcome was to inconvenience the University admin staff (although maybe they were used to it and just carried on working elsewhere …).
At no time did anyone question the underlying premise that the University selling its shares would do any good. The ONLY time I ever heard it discussed in any depth was at a University Senate meeting, where I think they decided against the motion. It was such a relief to hear people discuss things in a calm and logical manner and not take things for granted. (Maybe I should have realised then that I was destined to be a lawyer).
Ever since that time I have deeply distrusted the ‘we all think’ mindset and have tried to avoid being sucked into it.
The latest manifestation of the ‘we all think’ mindset is the Suzy Butler case, which I wrote about here. In this case ‘everyone’ was up in arms about how awful it was that a charity worker was not being allowed into her own home by this despicable squatter who had overstayed her tenancy and was refusing to pay rent. When I pointed out to the BBC researcher that actually she was not a squatter and was entitled to stay there, she was quite surprised.
The ‘we all think’ mindset is dangerous because it can lead people into taking action to support things which, if they considered them properly, may not really be things they support or believe in. Or it may encourage them into taking unwise action.
For example as some people have pointed out, Ms Butler’s conduct towards her erstwhile tenant quite probably constitutes harassment as defined by the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, rendering her liable to prosecution.
The harassment legislation was brought in to protect tenants from being evicted (or ‘persuaded’ to leave) by criminal landlords without going through the courts. If charity workers ‘just wanting to live in their own home again’ are allowed to evict their tenants (or ‘persuade’ them to leave by vilifying them in the media) without going through the courts, then that makes a nonsense of tenants rights.
The two situations may feel very different, but if you change the law for one, it is difficult to prevent the law changing for the other too.
We should all think about these stories, without the miasma of emotion which tends to surround them. You may find that, on reflection, you have quite a different opinion from ‘everyone’.
And join with me in rejecting the ‘we all think’ mindset.
(The Thinker photo by KellyK)
The landlord, Suzy Butler, was all too happy to rent her house on, under an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, at the rate of £1,235 pm. That strikes me as being around the same rate a professional landlord with multiple properties would seek to charge for a house in that area.
Apparently the tenant had paid over £6,000 in rent during her tenancy to Suzy Butler – the landlord – who had willing took the decision to rent out her home to the market.
Yet when, allegedly the tenant fell into arrears (not proven to court) , the landlord calls in the media to give a sob story, the tenant is branded a squatter of national television and on radio. The tenant put under a lot of pressure to leave the landlord’s home. Also conflicting information by Suzy Butler that she wanted her home back months earlier, when in fact she’d signed an extended contract for the tenant to stay until August 2010.
So we have a landlord who is happy to accept the full market rate of rent for letting her property to the market, but wants to afford her tenant little of the legal protections and due legal process in certain changes of circumstances (if there were arrears*) which tenants are entitled to.
*Or because, landlord suddenly decided they wanted immediate possession of the property for their own ends, and wants tenant out on their immediate demand.
I hope I, as a tenant, never have to endure Suzy Butler style behaviour from a landlord. It’s worrying for all tenants that this can happen, and that the media seem to come down heavily in support on the side of the home-owner and landlord, vilifying the lawful tenant as a squatter.
Yes, the media comment in that case seems to have been heavily skewed towards the landlord.
The harassment legislation was brought in for a purpose, and I and many others have been concerned at the way the media appear to have ignored that legislation.
It may perhaps have been morally ‘right’ for Ms Butler to recover her property in this case (although we have not really heard the tenants side – the only clip I saw where she tried to speak she was interrupted and not allowed to finish). However we should all comply with the law, however inconvenient it may be for us personally.
If we can pick and choose the laws we are going to comply with, then goodbye to a cilivised society!
I do not see that the standing of the landlord should make any difference to whether or not a tenant is considered harassed or illegally evicted. After all the tenant on an AST has just the one home so what matter to them if they are illegally evicted by a landlord with a large portfolio of properties or a single mum. Either way the tenant is still just as homeless. Landlords letting out just their old home may not consider they are running a business but that doesn’t stop them charging market rent. Meanwhile the tenant wanting a home keeps getting moved on when their “not really a business” landlord wants to sell or move back in.
That is very true. Although the media involement (resulting in the swift departure of the tenant) in the Butler case is most unusual.
There is also the problem of the very long delays thatt can take place in our court system, which means that a landlord who is fully justifed in recovering possession will have to wait three to six months, which is a long time if your tenant is not paying rent and you still have to pay the mortage.
However that is really due to the delays in the court process. The courts are currently heavily underfunded and this is unlikley to change in the current economic climate.
I just saw the clip on Nearly Legal of the landlord and GMTV presenter going into the tenant’s home and asking her when she is going to leave and the landlord becoming hysterical and shouting at the tenant. If I had been there I would have cautioned both the reporter and Ms Butler under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and warned them they were quite probably committing a criminal offence.
I get called to cases like this several times a week and it is hard enough to stop these incidents taking place without having GMTV showing their reporters doing it and making it look acceptable. I have never made a complaint I my life but I have just e mailed a complaint to GMTV about this.
Yesterday I interviewed a tenant who tried to call the police to protect him during an incident and the landlord wrestled the phone out of his hand and broke 2 fingers in the process before throwing the man to the ground. Ms Butler may not be that extreme but the laws exist to protect tenant from landlords like my client’s, despite reporter John Stapleton’s dismissive criticism