Tent thread

tbs624

Now, here's the sort of "Chinese whispers" effect that gets to me (on the topic of the potential for tenant harassment, illegal eviction and Suzy Butler's actions towards her T.)

We have the intelligent bunch like Tessa Shepperson and the Nearly Legal Team (and TROs such as Ben) and then we have a solicitors' firm with their webpage containing this, posted mid-August:

It has been reported this week about a charity worker who has been forced to live in a tent after a squatter took over her house while she was abroad helping homeless people.

The now squatter was in fact a former tenant on a short term rental agreement and also owes rent. This highlights the area of Law known as Landlord and Tenant and in this particular case the action of possession. The Housing Act 1988 and 1996 gives grounds for possession a Landlord can take against a tenant that won’t leave.

Harvey Harding of our Private Client department notes “Formal procedures are in place for the landlord to take place as both have rights. It’s important the landlord follows these procedures and does not take their own action which may see them breaching the law themselves”

Naturally this is often a stressful time as highlighted by the reported article and it’s worth remembering if the matter does go to Court this takes time and is expensive”.
What are your views?

"The now squatter was in fact a former tenant??? Back to the law books for you, matey....you clearly need to learn the difference between a tenant and a squatter.

This firm apparently specialises in personal injury law - perhaps the author of this piece may like to stick to what he knows and/or his senior partners should check over his work before slapping it up on the net.

I suppose that at least one of the colleagues knows that LLs should not take the law into his/her own hands, as Suzy Butler seems to have done.

Their blog says:

Please feel free to comment on any of our blog posts via the comments box at the bottom of each post. We look forward to reading your views

john539

tbs624 wrote: »

That's the whole thing john539 - we flagged it up on the first page of the original MSE thread that Suzy Butler could have used a Standard Assured Tenancy and pre-served the relevant Notice. Its apparent omission is one of the most glaring errors in Ms Butlers list of many misunderstanding of the law . She claimed to have sought advice on the tenancy agreement: I do hope she didn't pay good money for the "advice" she received.

I've just checked my saved copies of old thread.

Yes, you posted something on this, post #9 on 1st page.
I came into old thread few days later on page 11.

In your post you say "Standard Assured Tenancy Agreement", , what do you mean here, is this same as Assured Shorthold Tenancy ?

tbs624 11-08-2010, 7:37 PM
I think it was Neverdespairgirl who flagged this specific case up in a previous thread about a query on very short ASTs.

Originally Posted by BitterAndTwisted
She's learned the hard way that there's no such thing as a 2-month AST. Why people take such risky gambles for the sake of so little money is beyond me

It is not true to say that there is no such thing as a 2 month AST: it is true to say that the LL cannot gain repossession via a s21 Notice within the first 6 months but that inability only applies to the first FT period, after which the LL & T may choose to agree to a shorter period. (Still may mean the LL pursuing the T to court though, if T fails to move out after being served with a valid s21) The LL can also use s8 proceedings if appropriate.

In this particular case, the owner should have used a Standard Assured Tenancy Agreement and, as she had previously occupied the property as her own home, she could then have pre-served the T with a Ground 1 notice. Her current situation is what happens when people don't fully acquaint themselves with LL & T law before letting out a property. Probably downloaded a free AST off the net and failed to get proper advice.

SouthCoast

Apologies if this has been posted before:

My Landlord wants me out - protection against harassment and illegal eviction

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/mylandlordwants

dopester

SouthCoast wrote: »

Apologies if this has been posted before:

My Landlord wants me out - protection against harassment and illegal eviction

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/mylandlordwants

Thanks for that SC. The formulas for damages on pg 16 helps me better understand the damage awards made on that overview of cases at Nearly Legal.

The more I consider it, the less likely I think it will be Ms Nobre would, if she made a successful claim, receive any substantial damages.

In most of the cases on that Nearly Legal page, where the tenant has won, I feel they'd probably have done better if they'd just not been illegally evicted in the first place.

That the damages awarded often do little to make up for all the trouble, stress and inconvenience they've been put through, in many cases. That's just my own opinion and I respect the court.

Unless, re Suzy Butler, the national media attention championed by the landlord makes it exceptional somehow. Even then though, I can't see a court awarding big damages against a woman who is MD of a Chariddee and, it appears to many, revels in her own ignorance about what being a landlord entailed. Starting a campaign to "expose the law".

The higher awards seem reserved for possible claims where damages could be based on "development value". Where a landlord/agents might illegally evict a sitting tenant from a property which could command a much higher value with vacant possession, on the open market. And that is just due to rare circumstance... eg if the presence of a lawful sitting tenant who doesn't want leave their home prevents a multi-million pound property deal being sealed.

And for Personal Injury.

and he developed depression and feelings of self-harm. Four years later he was diagnosed as suffering from severe depression, agoraphobia and paranoid ideation. He was unable to work. The psychiatrist found the eviction had generated the deterioration in Mr Hunt’s mental health.

Personal Injury: £45,000. Awarded in view of the JSB guidelines on damages for psychiatric injury. Also exacerbated asthma. The case fell into the most severe category for psychiatric damage – £35,000 to £74,000. The damages were not at the top end as Mr Hunt had a predisposition to mental health problems and the Court did not accepted the eggshell principle wholly applied.

If the case against the landlord was brought and won, I wonder if it could open up a defamation case against GMTV and others, for being labelled a squatter... (although my legal source told me that the law courts are very ambiguous about the term squatter [?])

Basic law for idiots
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html

These damages are weighed up using a number of methods.

How widespread was the news released? If it was plastered all over the UK's biggest newspaper, then it would be more damaging than if the story ran on page 13 of the Grimthorpe Herald or on a rarely visited website.

neverdespairgirl

dopester wrote: »

Thanks for reminding me. Post 469.

Up to £100 ceiling fine for first offence? Well that is a pathetic punishment / deterrent in these circumstances.

Under what sort of claim would you file to seek more substantial damages? It's these pitfalls where I wonder if the tenant would find it worthwhile taking any legal action. If Ms Nobre does decide to take legal action, I hope she'll appoint a firm which narrows down the most rewarding approach to go for.

You need to distinguish between criminal prosecutions (fines) and civil actions (damages).

SouthCoast

The higher awards seem reserved for possible claims where damages could be based on "development value". Where a landlord/agents might illegally evict a sitting tenant from a property which could command a much higher value with vacant possession, on the open market.

The Hoogstraten Business Model.

theartfullodger

SouthCoast wrote: »

The Hoogstraten Business Model.

Also an admired & respected Brighton Landlord I think, like the criminal Butler..

For anyone who doesn't know this fine upstanding gentleman see...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_van_Hoogstraten

Cheers!

Artful

tbs624

dopester wrote: »

Thanks for reminding me. Post 469.

Up to £100 ceiling fine for first offence? Well that is a pathetic punishment / deterrent in these circumstances.

Under what sort of claim would you file to seek more substantial damages? It's these pitfalls where I wonder if the tenant would find it worthwhile taking any legal action. If Ms Nobre does decide to take legal action, I hope she'll appoint a firm which narrows down the most rewarding approach to go for.

It's obviously vital that a T in these circumstances seeks out legal advice from someone with specific expertise in housing/LL&T law.

As NDG says , there is a differentiation to be made between applications under civil or criminal law.

Notorious North Wales LL Steven Dickens got charged after unlawfully depriving a T of occupancy so breaking the terms of an ASBO: the ASBO itself had been put in place after he was abusive to Council officers & it also prohibited him from threatening or abusive behaviour towards his tenants, or unlawfully evicting them.He did end up in prison, but for mortgage fraud (He'd previously been fined 12k plus around 18k costs for gas safety offences- he wrote into his Ts contracts that they were responsible for the gas appliances at his properties)

Once again, the fines for tenant harassment and unlawful eviction tend to be small and as for a custodial actually being put the LLs way.....anyway, here's what the Protection from Eviction Act (PEA) says

4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.

(5)Nothing in this section shall be taken to prejudice any liability or remedy to which a person guilty of an offence thereunder may be subject in civil proceedings.

One of the possible routes in pursuit of civil damages is under the LL's breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

There will be some lawyers who would be itching to take on Ms Nobre's case.:)

john539

Chris55 wrote: »

On a lighter note....

Petition Watch at Midday, 10 September...

Donald Duck,-,in a tent
Mary Hinge,44,Southsea
Mandy heard,36,Brighton & hove
Mandy hutchings,38,Cardiff
Suzy Butler,32,Hove
Natalie Mason,36,Preston, Lancashire
Judith Mason,61,Preston Lancashire
Jeremy Dunmore,34,London

Petition Watch at 9am, 11 September:

GreatPetition,67,LoadsaFun
Ascender Group,97,Being struck off
ima bovethelaw,23,ignorant land
Late Rent,15,Daily Charge
madeup some crap,32,la la land
Ignorant LL,49,Forget The law
Illegally Evicted,55,My Tenant
charity begins,33,at home
Gota Pad in Peru,54,Keep ThataSecret
Tent's A LIe,35,Dad's Loaded
Made Them-Homeless,54,WorkForCharity Hmm
Nasty People,88,Lie on TV
I'ma Bully,69,Bullytown
Change T'Law,79,OnceI've BrokenIt
Jezza Dickless,50,Failed Businessman
Lardy Butler,60,GMTVEvictionSquad

Mandy heard,36,Brighton & hove
Mandy hutchings,38,Cardiff
Suzy Butler,32,Hove
Natalie Mason,36,Preston, Lancashire
Judith Mason,61,Preston Lancashire
Jeremy Dunmore,34,London

tbs624

john539 wrote: »

I've just checked my saved copies of old thread.

Yes, you posted something on this, post #9 on 1st page.
I came into old thread few days later on page 11.

In your post you say "Standard Assured Tenancy Agreement", , what do you mean here, is this same as Assured Shorthold Tenancy ?

No, it's not the same. See the HA1988, Chapter II and Schedule 2a. s21 Notices are only applicable to Assured Shorthold tenancies.

See also Schedule 2:

Grounds for Possession of Dwelling-houses let on Assured Tenancies

Part I
Grounds on which Court must order possession

Ground 1
Not later than the beginning of the tenancy the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered on this ground or the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to dispense with the requirement of notice and (in either case)—

(a) at some time before the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord who is seeking possession or, in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of them occupied the dwelling-house as his only or principal home; or
(b) the landlord who is seeking possession or, in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of them requires the dwelling-house as [F1 his, his spouse’s or his civil partner's] only or principal home and neither the landlord (or, in the case of joint landlords, any one of them) nor any other person who, as landlord, derived title under the landlord who gave the notice mentioned above acquired the reversion on the tenancy for money or money’s worth.

Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1
Words in Sch. 2 Pt. 1 Ground 1 substituted (5.12.2005) by Civil Partnership Act 2004 (c. 33), s. 81, 263, Sch. 8 para. 43(2) ; S.I. 2005/ 3175, art. 2(1), Sch.