Landlords minded to levy distress should take the greatest care to ensure that the tenant is in no position to assert a set-off — a danger now greatly increased by the readiness of modern courts to allow (restitutionary) claims for the recovery of money paid under a mistake of law.
To make matters worse, it seems that it will not help the landlord to show that the distress was levied at a time when no relevant demand had been received from the tenant: see
Related item:
See Nicholas Cheffings’ comments on the human rights aspects of the case in
Landlords minded to levy distress should take the greatest care to ensure that the tenant is in no position to assert a set-off — a danger now greatly increased by the readiness of modern courts to allow (restitutionary) claims for the recovery of money paid under a mistake of law.
To make matters worse, it seems that it will not help the landlord to show that the distress was levied at a time when no relevant demand had been received from the tenant: see Distress signals Estates Gazette 10 June 2001, p159, where Sandi Murdoch considers Fuller v Happy Shopper Markets [2001] EGCS 25.
Related item:
See Nicholas Cheffings’ comments on the human rights aspects of the case in Weighed in the balance Estates Gazette 19 May 2001.
