Walsh v. Shuangyan, Manchester County Court, 14 January 2010
This concerned a tenancy for a room in an HMO. The Local Authority served notices on the landlord as she had failed to obtain a license, requiring her to do various remedial works. As a result of the boiler and electricity being disconnected, all the tenants except Mr Walsh moved out.
Mr Walsh was then subjected to a reign of harassment and intimidation by the landlord and her father, who also assaulted him. On one occasion he had to barricade himself into his room while they were in the house.
On 16 September he arrived home to find the locks had been changed and some of his possessions put into bin bags. The rest were still inside the room where he could not get at them. He complained to the Local Authority Tenancy Relations Officer (TRO) who spoke to the landlord but she still refused to let him in.
She also refused to comply with an injunction obtained by Mr Walsh and was committed to prison for 28 days. Mr Walsh had to sleep on friends sofas for 30 days, missed work, and developed a painful back.
He was awarded the following:
£2,000 for harassment before the eviction
£6,000 for the eviction and its consequences (based on a ‘daily rate’ of £200)
£4,000 for aggravated damages
£1,500 exemplary damages (representing the costs the landlord might have incurred had she sought advice and evicted Mr Walsh lawfully)
£5,750 special damages for his lost possessions and earnings
Costs on an indemnity basis
Total £19,454 (plus the indemnity costs)
房东以锁门，扔房客东西的方式驱逐房客 ， 法院判决结果6000镑,5750镑是房客的实际损失，其他项目基本是惩罚性赔偿，而且房东支付双方律师费，并且是以比较高的比例支付的。 （一般，法律判决都是standard basis来支付律师费，也就是说输的一方除支付自己一方的律师费，还要支付对方律师费的60-80%, indemnity cost 則是以大概90%比例來支付對方律師費。),遇到这种情况，打官司就好了，网络发帖报料是最没杀伤力的打击方式了，只有华人会这么做，换句话讲，欺负自己人成本最低。