No wonder the world is so stuffed up.That poor man what might be valuable to me might be rubbish to someone else .That landlord might be right legally but wrong morally.
That depends on whether you 2oukd rent your own house out for nothing. Try putting your actions into practice before commenting on someone's obligation when no obligation whatsoever exists! How do you know that the landlord doesn't need the money and could have lost his house. Wow! I hadn't realised that Brits had a such poor reasoning skills - almost the same as Americans. Rinder made the right decision and as Judge Judy would say, if you're not related, there's no obligation.
I feel like JR's hands were tied here by the letter of the law, but it can't have felt good to make that ruling. Guys, don't bring someone to court when you don't have tangible evidence against them. Even the most sympathetic judge isn't a wizard, they can't just sort it all out for you.
The landlord John clearly got rid of all Anthony's stuff. You can tell just by his demeanour. Who else could have done it? I am sure Anthony is pleased that the debt of rent was paid off by the programme and he no longer has that hanging over him. And also pleased, as I am, that the landlord got nothing else he was claiming for. Hope Anthony and his family are ok these days. I do also feel a bit sorry for the landlord as all he wanted was to rent out his flat, he didn't ask for all this to happen. But he didn't help himself by how he behaved and (in my opinion) getting rid of all the belongings.
@@ianoliver3879 are you serious?? If you are, that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard !! What the hell do tattoos have to do with anything?!?
I completely agree with you Ismay. I was happy to hear the show paid his debt ! The landlord was as guilty as sin as far as getting rid of Anthony’s belongings. Anthony said the landlord would call in and talk to his son, if there was nothing in the house, no couch, tv, beds etc why didn’t he report him to child services ? If it was filthy why didn’t he evict him beforehand? It doesn’t add up ! I was so upset for Anthony, how could he have pictures of the house to bring to court, when everything was gone? Talk about kicking someone when they’re down !
It shouldn’t sit well with you. Watch the post-court comments. Brief as they are, the landlord , in effect (he doesn’t say it, but his comment relays this information), admits to disposing of the renter’s belongings. He lied.., to both courts. And got away with it. It’s a miscarriage of Justice. The plaintiff’s explanation of the events is 100% correct. Again, watch the comments at the end. The renter asks the landlord why he didn’t put his belongings in storage. The landlord’s response? Obviously, it should be “what belongings????” He’s claimed in two court cases that there was nothing there and the property was abandoned. Oh, but no, this wasn’t the response! Instead he said, “I gave you two months.” Two months for what? The question wasn’t about eviction. He didn’t give him two months notice for eviction. That wasn’t the question. The question was about his property. It is blatantly obvious that the landlord disposed of the renter’s property. I don’t blame the judge here. It didn’t become obvious until the post-court comments. Nonetheless, it’s a travesty and a miscarriage of Justice. The landlord discarded the renter’s belongings and lied about it. In TWO court proceedings. This is a complete travesty. And in case anyone thinks I’m reading too much into the landlord’s offhandedly comment… don’t be so naive. He essentially admitted to disposing of the items. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s medical status was never brought into questions. So, to the best of our knowledge, he was indeed indisposed for the three months in question. He also provided photos of his furnishings in one of the rooms which both parties agreed belonged to him. Where did they magically disappear to? Someone removed them! And let’s remember, due to the plaintiff’s medical situation, he was unaware of the eviction. So, why on earth would he remove all of the furniture from his home? It’s complete nonsense. And as for the third party witness who confirms that the property appeared abandoned, well that’s also pure nonsense. All the landlord had to do is arrange that visit AFTER he had already removed the property. That’s not complicated at all. You’d need to be a gullible fool to fall for that witness statement. And, no, I’m not calling Judge Rinder a gullible fool… I’m talking about in hindsight, after we’ve heard the effective admission of guilt by the landlord in the post-court comments. In hindsight, with all of the knowledge we know now, yeah, that “independent witness” is just a joke. It’s a planned ruse by the landlord… get someone to come around and observe the scene after he had already prepped it to appear abandoned. It’s a staged scene. The independent witness is a witness only to a fraud. So, it’s right of you that this doesn’t sit well with you. Not only did the plaintiff lose a case he rightly should’ve won - the landlord illegally disposed of his property. BUT… the judge also ruled that the plaintiff is liable for the rent arrears. In every court in the civilized world, you’d lose your case, even if you’re in the right in law, if you make false representations. That is, yes, the plaintiff does - lawfully - owe that rent. However, the landlord has made serious perjurous statements to the court - multiple times. He lied about removing the tenant’s property. His counterclaim, therefore, should be rejected out of hand, even if it is, technically, lawfully correct. This is a rule in most courts in the Western world… your case is automatically dismissed if you make false representation. So, this is a complete miscarriage of Justice. The plaintiff should’ve been awarded 2500 pounds. Instead, the defendant was awarded nearly 1500 pounds on a counterclaim! Absolutely absurd! In fact, ad a measure of punitive damages, the plaintiff should’ve been awarded his mental duress claim as well… another 2000 pounds. And let’s remember the premise here and why that mental duress claim is more valid now that we know the truth. The judge didn’t believe that the renter’s belongings were disposed of. Soooooo…. What mental duress would derive from a nonexistent action. Of course Judge Rinder would rule against the mental duress claim. BUT… if the judge believed that the landlord disposed of items of personal and sentimental value to the plaintiff, he might be more open to such a claim. So, knowing now the full picture, as the judge, sadly, didn’t, we can say that the plaintiff should’ve been awarded 4500 pounds and the defendant zero on his counterclaim. Given that the plaintiff got nothing and the defendant got 1500, this is a 6000 pound miscarriage of Justice. I think most viewers on here are from America. The pound, though weaker now, has traditionally traded at nearly 2:1 versus the dollar. So, for any American viewers, this is about $10,000. It is, indeed, for most folks, a LOT of money. So… yes… this is quite distressing. The landlord is a literal criminal, having committed perjury on two courts of law. And the plaintiff has been swindled out of $10,000… with no recourse because it was, in fact, the courts themselves which inappropriately dictated that $10,000 sum. The plaintiff should be receiving $8,000 and instead he is demanded to pay the criminal defendant $2,000. An absolute travesty.
I have a deadly illness and live alone but I still pay my rent and all my bills on time - no matter how often I have to go to the hospital. This guy's rent cheque is obviously paid directly to him by transfer and all he needs to do is set up a standing order to pay the rent, a standing order which he clearly cancelled after three months - for whatever reason. In the UK, you don't pay for healthcare like in other countries, so it's not as if he had to pay medical costs. I absolutely think he's a liar. Someone removed his stuff, or he had it removed. He's overplaying the victim card. What a bad renter! He also said he had 'children' while he was ill so that's a non sequitur!
Sad part about this case is the brief comments at the end. It’s obvious that the landlord DID in fact lie. The renter asks why he didn’t put his stuff in storage. The obvious answer, if the landlord was being truthful is “what stuff?” Instead his reply was that he gave him two months. I’m not angry at Judge Rinder. He just got hoodwinked like everyone else. But the third party independent individual who also observed the property to be effectively abandoned obviously observed the property AFTER the landlord had removed the belongings. As such, this entire case ended improperly. Not only should the plaintiff have won at least his claim of property value, but the defendant surrenders his claim in the face of his dishonesty and, therefore, even if he is entitled, on some legal level, to his rent arrears, there is a principle in law where you forfeit your claims if you make false representation to the court, which he absolutely and obviously did. He essentially admitted as much in the post-case commentary. I’ve seen this occur in multiple cases before in these televised court shows when, once the proceedings are concluded, the litigants seem to feel free and released, and revelatory comments are made in the post-court interviews. It should be standard practice for the judges to observe these post-court interviews and, if warranted, instruct the parties back into the courtroom for a revised sentence. Had Judge Rinder observed the post court comments, I believe her coke to the same reasonable conclusion I did. The landlord effectively admitted that he removed the renter’s property and, just as the renter accused, hauled it straight off to the tip. That’s what occurred. The landlord, for all intents and purposes, outrightly and directly admitted it. Judge Rinder should’ve hauled them both back into the courtroom, revoked the landlord’s award, awarded the plaintiff his 2500 pounds, AND referred the matter for criminal prosecution as the landlord clearly committed perjury in his proceedings to get the tenant evicted. In fact, because that would also make the eviction unwarranted and null and void, the renter should probably also be awarded his claim of mental duress. It might be a stretch, but as a means of punitive damages against the landlord for his perjury, it is a reasonable finding. The 500 pounds for improvements was properly ruled against. But, otherwise, the plaintiff should have won the balance of his claim here… 4509 pounds… and the counterclaim, nothing… as the claim was presented under false pretenses. Again, the judges should observe the post-courtroom commentary and reserve the right to haul the parties back in for revised rulings. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen something like this on one of these programs. So, while I wouldn’t say it’s a regular occurrence, since the judges usually get things right anyway, and they usually know when a litigant is lying… I wouldn’t exactly call it rare, either. This is an occasional occurrence where one of the parties essentially reveals that he or she has lied in the courtroom. The judge should immediately bring them back in for a revised sentencing. And if anyone reading this comment thinks I’m reading too much into the landlord’s comment, don’t be so naive. The plaintiff provided photos of his furniture in the property. So, SOMEONE did move it out. I guess the landlord is claiming the plaintiff himself moved it out at some point? I don’t know. That was never addressed. But no question was ever raised as to the plaintiff’s hospitalization. So that appears to be true, at least on face value. So, when and why would he have removed his property? He had no intention of moving out and was not aware he was being evicted because he was out of contact with the landlord. As for the judge’s assertion of why the landlord wouldn’t sell his items… 1) there’s actually nothing to indicate that he DIDN’T… perhaps he did… the court has no evidence one way or the other; and 2) I could very much see a landlord not wanting to be bothered with the hassle of trying to sell used furniture and other items… if I was said landlord, I’d do the same thing and just haul it off to the dump, which is precisely what this landlord did. He THEN brought his independent observer around AFTER he had done that to show them, “look, there’s not even anything here… it’s been abandoned!” This case was a miscarriage of Justice. And I don’t blame the judge. He drew a reasonable conclusion based on the representations made to him. However, it was crystal clear in the post-court comments that the landlord disposed of the tenant’s belongings. Judge Rinder should’ve immediately ordered the parties back into his courtroom, reversed the ruling, and referred the matter to criminal court for prosecution of the landlord.
This is not justice! This is amoral law! Shame on you, Judge Rinder, for not being able to show compassion and empathy for Anthony with his severe health issues. You obviously have never experienced that level of suffering or poverty. You, perhaps, need to leave your posh neighborhood and spend time talking with the poor and homeless and perhaps volunteering in a soup kitchen. Your education, sir, is incomplete and therefore you ability to judge fairly is thusly also incomplete! I would sentence you to at least 500 hours of public service helping the poor.
Wow, these videos and Judge Rinder are so powerfully riveting and uniquely entertaining - Great to catch these videos.
Thanks for the title, very helpful.
No wonder the world is so stuffed up.That poor man what might be valuable to me might be rubbish to someone else .That landlord might be right legally but wrong morally.
That depends on whether you 2oukd rent your own house out for nothing. Try putting your actions into practice before commenting on someone's obligation when no obligation whatsoever exists! How do you know that the landlord doesn't need the money and could have lost his house. Wow! I hadn't realised that Brits had a such poor reasoning skills - almost the same as Americans. Rinder made the right decision and as Judge Judy would say, if you're not related, there's no obligation.
I feel like JR's hands were tied here by the letter of the law, but it can't have felt good to make that ruling. Guys, don't bring someone to court when you don't have tangible evidence against them. Even the most sympathetic judge isn't a wizard, they can't just sort it all out for you.
I sure feel for this guy Anthony but his ex has everything to do with this I bet
😢😢😢
😢7. .
😢😢😢
The landlord John clearly got rid of all Anthony's stuff. You can tell just by his demeanour. Who else could have done it? I am sure Anthony is pleased that the debt of rent was paid off by the programme and he no longer has that hanging over him. And also pleased, as I am, that the landlord got nothing else he was claiming for. Hope Anthony and his family are ok these days. I do also feel a bit sorry for the landlord as all he wanted was to rent out his flat, he didn't ask for all this to happen. But he didn't help himself by how he behaved and (in my opinion) getting rid of all the belongings.
The tenant has a tattoo. The landlord should have known better.
You disrespect me I'll congressional move a piece of substance and chaotic world of he'll on you
@@ianoliver3879 are you serious?? If you are, that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard !! What the hell do tattoos have to do with anything?!?
@@FranciscoNieves-db8hi what???
I completely agree with you Ismay. I was happy to hear the show paid his debt ! The landlord was as guilty as sin as far as getting rid of Anthony’s belongings. Anthony said the landlord would call in and talk to his son, if there was nothing in the house, no couch, tv, beds etc why didn’t he report him to child services ? If it was filthy why didn’t he evict him beforehand? It doesn’t add up ! I was so upset for Anthony, how could he have pictures of the house to bring to court, when everything was gone? Talk about kicking someone when they’re down !
This doesn't sit well with me, but, this is a court of law not a court of morals.
It shouldn’t sit well with you. Watch the post-court comments. Brief as they are, the landlord , in effect (he doesn’t say it, but his comment relays this information), admits to disposing of the renter’s belongings. He lied.., to both courts. And got away with it. It’s a miscarriage of Justice. The plaintiff’s explanation of the events is 100% correct. Again, watch the comments at the end. The renter asks the landlord why he didn’t put his belongings in storage. The landlord’s response? Obviously, it should be “what belongings????” He’s claimed in two court cases that there was nothing there and the property was abandoned. Oh, but no, this wasn’t the response! Instead he said, “I gave you two months.” Two months for what? The question wasn’t about eviction. He didn’t give him two months notice for eviction. That wasn’t the question. The question was about his property.
It is blatantly obvious that the landlord disposed of the renter’s property. I don’t blame the judge here. It didn’t become obvious until the post-court comments. Nonetheless, it’s a travesty and a miscarriage of Justice. The landlord discarded the renter’s belongings and lied about it. In TWO court proceedings. This is a complete travesty. And in case anyone thinks I’m reading too much into the landlord’s offhandedly comment… don’t be so naive. He essentially admitted to disposing of the items. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s medical status was never brought into questions. So, to the best of our knowledge, he was indeed indisposed for the three months in question. He also provided photos of his furnishings in one of the rooms which both parties agreed belonged to him. Where did they magically disappear to? Someone removed them! And let’s remember, due to the plaintiff’s medical situation, he was unaware of the eviction. So, why on earth would he remove all of the furniture from his home? It’s complete nonsense. And as for the third party witness who confirms that the property appeared abandoned, well that’s also pure nonsense. All the landlord had to do is arrange that visit AFTER he had already removed the property. That’s not complicated at all. You’d need to be a gullible fool to fall for that witness statement. And, no, I’m not calling Judge Rinder a gullible fool… I’m talking about in hindsight, after we’ve heard the effective admission of guilt by the landlord in the post-court comments. In hindsight, with all of the knowledge we know now, yeah, that “independent witness” is just a joke. It’s a planned ruse by the landlord… get someone to come around and observe the scene after he had already prepped it to appear abandoned. It’s a staged scene. The independent witness is a witness only to a fraud.
So, it’s right of you that this doesn’t sit well with you. Not only did the plaintiff lose a case he rightly should’ve won - the landlord illegally disposed of his property. BUT… the judge also ruled that the plaintiff is liable for the rent arrears. In every court in the civilized world, you’d lose your case, even if you’re in the right in law, if you make false representations. That is, yes, the plaintiff does - lawfully - owe that rent. However, the landlord has made serious perjurous statements to the court - multiple times. He lied about removing the tenant’s property. His counterclaim, therefore, should be rejected out of hand, even if it is, technically, lawfully correct. This is a rule in most courts in the Western world… your case is automatically dismissed if you make false representation. So, this is a complete miscarriage of Justice. The plaintiff should’ve been awarded 2500 pounds. Instead, the defendant was awarded nearly 1500 pounds on a counterclaim! Absolutely absurd! In fact, ad a measure of punitive damages, the plaintiff should’ve been awarded his mental duress claim as well… another 2000 pounds. And let’s remember the premise here and why that mental duress claim is more valid now that we know the truth. The judge didn’t believe that the renter’s belongings were disposed of. Soooooo…. What mental duress would derive from a nonexistent action. Of course Judge Rinder would rule against the mental duress claim. BUT… if the judge believed that the landlord disposed of items of personal and sentimental value to the plaintiff, he might be more open to such a claim.
So, knowing now the full picture, as the judge, sadly, didn’t, we can say that the plaintiff should’ve been awarded 4500 pounds and the defendant zero on his counterclaim. Given that the plaintiff got nothing and the defendant got 1500, this is a 6000 pound miscarriage of Justice. I think most viewers on here are from America. The pound, though weaker now, has traditionally traded at nearly 2:1 versus the dollar. So, for any American viewers, this is about $10,000. It is, indeed, for most folks, a LOT of money. So… yes… this is quite distressing. The landlord is a literal criminal, having committed perjury on two courts of law. And the plaintiff has been swindled out of $10,000… with no recourse because it was, in fact, the courts themselves which inappropriately dictated that $10,000 sum. The plaintiff should be receiving $8,000 and instead he is demanded to pay the criminal defendant $2,000. An absolute travesty.
I have a deadly illness and live alone but I still pay my rent and all my bills on time - no matter how often I have to go to the hospital. This guy's rent cheque is obviously paid directly to him by transfer and all he needs to do is set up a standing order to pay the rent, a standing order which he clearly cancelled after three months - for whatever reason. In the UK, you don't pay for healthcare like in other countries, so it's not as if he had to pay medical costs. I absolutely think he's a liar. Someone removed his stuff, or he had it removed. He's overplaying the victim card. What a bad renter! He also said he had 'children' while he was ill so that's a non sequitur!
How could someone evict a person who was so sick………!
Bad ruling Judge Binder, the contents may not have been worth anything to you but to .Anthony it was his whole life.
Sad part about this case is the brief comments at the end. It’s obvious that the landlord DID in fact lie. The renter asks why he didn’t put his stuff in storage. The obvious answer, if the landlord was being truthful is “what stuff?” Instead his reply was that he gave him two months. I’m not angry at Judge Rinder. He just got hoodwinked like everyone else. But the third party independent individual who also observed the property to be effectively abandoned obviously observed the property AFTER the landlord had removed the belongings. As such, this entire case ended improperly. Not only should the plaintiff have won at least his claim of property value, but the defendant surrenders his claim in the face of his dishonesty and, therefore, even if he is entitled, on some legal level, to his rent arrears, there is a principle in law where you forfeit your claims if you make false representation to the court, which he absolutely and obviously did. He essentially admitted as much in the post-case commentary. I’ve seen this occur in multiple cases before in these televised court shows when, once the proceedings are concluded, the litigants seem to feel free and released, and revelatory comments are made in the post-court interviews. It should be standard practice for the judges to observe these post-court interviews and, if warranted, instruct the parties back into the courtroom for a revised sentence. Had Judge Rinder observed the post court comments, I believe her coke to the same reasonable conclusion I did. The landlord effectively admitted that he removed the renter’s property and, just as the renter accused, hauled it straight off to the tip. That’s what occurred. The landlord, for all intents and purposes, outrightly and directly admitted it. Judge Rinder should’ve hauled them both back into the courtroom, revoked the landlord’s award, awarded the plaintiff his 2500 pounds, AND referred the matter for criminal prosecution as the landlord clearly committed perjury in his proceedings to get the tenant evicted. In fact, because that would also make the eviction unwarranted and null and void, the renter should probably also be awarded his claim of mental duress. It might be a stretch, but as a means of punitive damages against the landlord for his perjury, it is a reasonable finding. The 500 pounds for improvements was properly ruled against. But, otherwise, the plaintiff should have won the balance of his claim here… 4509 pounds… and the counterclaim, nothing… as the claim was presented under false pretenses. Again, the judges should observe the post-courtroom commentary and reserve the right to haul the parties back in for revised rulings. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen something like this on one of these programs. So, while I wouldn’t say it’s a regular occurrence, since the judges usually get things right anyway, and they usually know when a litigant is lying… I wouldn’t exactly call it rare, either. This is an occasional occurrence where one of the parties essentially reveals that he or she has lied in the courtroom. The judge should immediately bring them back in for a revised sentencing. And if anyone reading this comment thinks I’m reading too much into the landlord’s comment, don’t be so naive. The plaintiff provided photos of his furniture in the property. So, SOMEONE did move it out. I guess the landlord is claiming the plaintiff himself moved it out at some point? I don’t know. That was never addressed. But no question was ever raised as to the plaintiff’s hospitalization. So that appears to be true, at least on face value. So, when and why would he have removed his property? He had no intention of moving out and was not aware he was being evicted because he was out of contact with the landlord. As for the judge’s assertion of why the landlord wouldn’t sell his items… 1) there’s actually nothing to indicate that he DIDN’T… perhaps he did… the court has no evidence one way or the other; and 2) I could very much see a landlord not wanting to be bothered with the hassle of trying to sell used furniture and other items… if I was said landlord, I’d do the same thing and just haul it off to the dump, which is precisely what this landlord did. He THEN brought his independent observer around AFTER he had done that to show them, “look, there’s not even anything here… it’s been abandoned!” This case was a miscarriage of Justice. And I don’t blame the judge. He drew a reasonable conclusion based on the representations made to him. However, it was crystal clear in the post-court comments that the landlord disposed of the tenant’s belongings. Judge Rinder should’ve immediately ordered the parties back into his courtroom, reversed the ruling, and referred the matter to criminal court for prosecution of the landlord.
Really don't feel so bad for him now he was pulling a fast one
John is a bit of a jerk. No sympathy for a weaker person.
This is not justice! This is amoral law! Shame on you, Judge Rinder, for not being able to show compassion and empathy for Anthony with his severe health issues. You obviously have never experienced that level of suffering or poverty. You, perhaps, need to leave your posh neighborhood and spend time talking with the poor and homeless and perhaps volunteering in a soup kitchen. Your education, sir, is incomplete and therefore you ability to judge fairly is thusly also incomplete! I would sentence you to at least 500 hours of public service helping the poor.