From knowing your rights on divorce to Easter egg deals, our experts share advice and deals
Consumer Crew
Share
Every Saturday, The Consumer Crew are here to solve your problems.
Mel Hunter will take on readers’ consumer issues, Amanda Cable will give you the best advice for buying your dream home, Maddy Tooke rounds up the best coupons to save you money andJudge Rinder will tackle your legal woes.
Advertisement
Judge Rinder - The Sun's legal expert
AS I boarded the train for my long commute to TV court the other day, I realised I had left my book at home so I picked up a discarded copy of The Guardian.
Sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures.
The headline which drew my immediate attention read as follows: “Woman ‘trapped in loveless marriage’ after judges refuse divorce.”
To say I was cross about this would be an understatement.
Advertisement
Anybody simply scanning the page (which I suspect a good deal of broadsheet readers do) might have been left with the wholly-misleading impression that the reason this woman is “trapped” in her marriage is somehow the judges’ fault.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The case I was reading about was Owens v Owens.
Advertisement
Tini Owens, 66, was refused a divorce because her husband of almost 40 years, Hugh Owens, 78, would not admit that the marriage had broken down.
The reason Mrs Owens’ case failed is because she was unable to prove one of the facts required by law which demonstrate that a marriage has broken down irretrievably.
These include adultery, dissertation, separation or unreasonable behaviour.
Advertisement
When it comes to divorce, couples should be able to separate in an adult way without having to place blame
Judge Rinder on divorce law
Even though Mrs Owens’ marriage causes her misery, the court found her feelings were insufficient to prove that there had been an irrevocable breakdown in the marriage.
This is not the fault of the judges who merely interpret the law but of Parliament who passed the law in the first place.
As the brilliant (and thoroughly humane) president of the family division Sir James Munby said in his judgment, divorce law is based on “hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty” and that as a result, couples engage in “consensual, collusive, manipulation” of the law.
Advertisement
The other judges of appeal also roundly criticised the current legislation.
Regardless of their feelings towards Mrs Owens’ predicament, these judges had no choice but to rule in favour of a husband who is clearly in the wrong.
The only response now is for Parliament to amend this outdated legislation at once.
They should introduce a no-fault divorce so that couples can separate in a grown-up way without the corrosive effects of being forced to blame one another — and so that Mrs Owens, and others like her, can get the justice they deserve.
Advertisement
Summing up
Q. I AM having trouble with my ex-landlord over cash related to a property I moved out of in January.
I paid a refundable £50 deposit for an electric gate fob and now he’s reluctant to refund me for it, despite endless text messages and him asking for my bank details twice.
He also said he would pay £100 for furniture that I left in the house.
He’s not replying to my messages now and I don’t know what to do next.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Lisa, London
A.This is an easy one.
You are perfectly entitled to the £50 you paid as a deposit for the electric key fob.
You are also entitled to the £100 he offered you for the furniture (assuming that you have this offer in writing by email).
If your landlord continues to fail to pay up, I would write to him making it clear that you want your money back within 14 days or you intend to take the matter to the small claims court.
I know it may be a trivial sum to some but, given your landlord’s behaviour, I suspect you are not the only tenant who has had this problem.
It seems that it is time someone finally stood up to him.
• Mr Rinder regrets he cannot answer questions personally.
Answers intended as general guidance, they do not constitute legal advice and are not a substitute for getting independent legal advice.