For almost a year, the man in his fifties sent messages criticizing the host. The man was sentenced to a fine for defamation.
Is unbelievable how any property manager dares to do his job so badly and fraudulently, you must be a very bad, fraudulent and nasty person!
The Helsinki district court dealt with a case in which a man in his fifties started a nearly year-long campaign against the property manager. The quote above is from a message the man sent to the property management company in March 2022.
The man started messaging in April 2021. He was dissatisfied with the renovations done in the housing association.
Based on his own experience in real estate brokerage and renovation, the man considered that the renovations were pointless. According to the man, the messages were about criticizing the company, which should be allowed even if the feedback is angry.
Man sent messages to the other residents of the housing association, to the woman who worked as a property manager, to her employer and to the employer’s partners.
In letters and e-mails, he claimed the property manager as a fraud who only pursues his own interests and makes useless renovations in the housing association. He also hinted that the property manager was acting criminally.
“It’s outrageous how any property manager is so brazen as to even dare to attempt this kind of scam!”, the man wrote in an email he sent to the other shareholders of the building company.
In the message he sent to the official supervisor of the renovation and to the contractor, the man wrote that “the renovation is a housing company financing and scam approved by the stupid government”.
Man denied being guilty of defamation. He admitted that he had sent the messages, but considered that it was a pointed review permitted by law and, according to the man, it did not impersonate the host.
The property manager considered the criticism unreasonable considering that the decisions were made at the general meeting and they were implemented together with the board.
According to the property manager, the messages caused resentment and possibly reputational damage.
According to the district court’s decision, the review did not come to the knowledge of only a small circle of people, and the review was apt to cause a decrease in the esteem of the entity subject to the review.
A man born in 1965 was sentenced to a 55-day fine for defamation.
The man appealed the verdict to the Court of Appeal, which did not grant him permission to appeal. The verdict is therefore legally binding.
#Judgments #angry #resident #campaigning #nasty #evil #property #manager #Helsinki
