Evict a rogue Landlord - Shelter...

Yorkie1

tbs624 wrote: »

Given that she has previously illegally evicted a T, surely she not be permitted to have an HMO licence anyway?

LLs who illegally evict can hardly be described as "fit and proper" persons IMO

Indeed, and one suspects that she knew she wouldn't get a licence because of that prior conviction, hence actions leading to second conviction.

Interesting case.

tbs624

A truly horrendous case from Norfolk, reported on HSE website

Landlord Michael Billings appeared at Norwich Crown Court today (Friday 7 May) to admit charges brought by both the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service.

The court heard Billings failed to provide even the most basic protection for his tenants, such as fitting a working fire alarm system, installing the correct number of fire doors or even providing adequate means of escape. The gas appliances in the flats above the shop had not been serviced or properly inspected.

There was a fire at the properties above a mobile phone shop and a young tenant was seriously injured. The LL was sentenced to two & a half years imprisonment and ordered to pay £20,000 in costs.

Source

lynzpower

That is horrendous, especially the bit that says:

only pioneering skin grafting techniques saved Layla Skalli's life after she suffered 80 per cent deep tissue burns all over her body following the blaze at her Norwich flat.

Virtually all the skin below her neck was destroyed by the intense 600 degree heat as the property above a mobile phone shop became a raging inferno last year with tenants in three adjoining properties lucky to escape the blaz

e.

clutton_2

OMG - that is truly awfull....... horrifying... what can anyone say...... i hope the book gets thrown at them

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

OMG - that is truly awfull....... horrifying... what can anyone say...... i hope the book gets thrown at them

Nice to see Clutton in the thread, actually commenting on this appalling LL.

The LL has already been sentenced in May this year (see link two posts up).

Richard Herrell, Group Manager at Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service, said:
"This is the first time the fire and rescue service in Norfolk has worked on a joint operation of this kind with the Health and Safety Executive, Norfolk Constabulary and Norwich City Council. This partnership approach proved to be a hugely effective in what was a complex and difficult case.

"This case has never been about interfering public bodies checking up on people for the sake of it: it's been about ensuring all properties where people live are safe.

"And of course it has been about (edit Ts name), who has shown quite extraordinary courage throughout what has been a most harrowing ordeal and we wish her well in the future."

Michael Billings was charged by the HSE with four counts of breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and one count of breaching Regulation 36(3)(a) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. The first four counts related to his four properties affected by the fire.

He was charged by Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service with nine counts of breaching Article 32(1)(a) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Orders 2005.

As the Ts brother said though,

"The actions of Michael Billings have ruined my sister's life.... no amount of time in prison could make up for the pain he has caused my sister and my family. Despite this we remain grateful to the people who made this prosecution possible and hope it helps save other lives."






So, Ts if you reckon your LLs fire safety precautions aren't sufficient get the local fire service/Council EHO round to check out the property.

Gorgeous_George

theartfullodger wrote: »

Thanks George: Hope there's no bus-drivers wrongfully accused on the FirstGreatWestern website then...

Cheers!

Artful

Ok, I have had a look at the site. Without names, the tenants' stories are just stories. They may be true, they could be exaggerated or they could be false. I'd expect most to be based on true events but I don't see the value.

Just as I could pretend to be a tenant and take their survey saying how good my landlord is.

GG

tbs624

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Ok, I have had a look at the site. Without names, the tenants' stories are just stories. They may be true, they could be exaggerated or they could be false.

I guess you could equally say that about many of the threads on this board?

A fair amount of what gets posted up, especially in the response posts, can come across as anecdotal rather than factual.(that goes for both those who say they are LLs and those who say they are Ts, or even those who stand on neither side of the line;)) eg I had a mate that....., I met/know another LL who says....

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I'd expect most to be based on true events but I don't see the value.

There are both Ts and LLs who have little or no idea that the circumstances of their own particular property based relationship breaches specific laws/regulations.

Anonymising actual cases on the Shelter website does not alter the basis of the case and if recounting the tale makes even one LL or one T understand anew how things *should* be, then that's a good thing.

When you are confronted with stats ( yes, I know, lies, damn lies, stats ) & examples of failures within the NHS or the policing of our country , should we automatically say that unless we are given the full break down of what is being said, including names, addresses, photographs etc, then there is no validity/point in raising the issues?

dopester

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I hope the shelter website avoids legal action from disgruntled landlords wrongly accused. Malicious comments could well be libellous.

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Ok, I have had a look at the site. Without names, the tenants' stories are just stories. They may be true, they could be exaggerated or they could be false. I'd expect most to be based on true events but I don't see the value.

First you can see the problems that might occur if tenants were more specific in recounting their experiences, if they named names.

Trying to take legal action against a landlord might not want the stress of taking take... stress and risks. Also that prevents them naming names in discussion in outline of their own experiences.

Then you discover it is tenants recounting personal experiences without specifically naming landlord's names; and you suggest it could easily be all made up.

Some of the experiences could be made up, but I'd suggest there are many valid points of view from tenants' experiences - if one sided. It's not like I've not been to landlordzone or SingingPig and read tales of tenants in arrears, ringing landlord too often for help on basic things, or other problems. Are those all not to be believed either? Just some random trying to make out what a chore and problem many tenants are in your line of business.

red40

tbs624 wrote: »

There was a fire at the properties above a mobile phone shop and a young tenant was seriously injured. The LL was sentenced to two & a half years imprisonment and ordered to pay £20,000 in costs.

Yes and this is not the first time Mr Bilings was in trouble with the authorities for example:-

In 1994 The Evening News revealed that he was fined £3,350 for putting lives at risk because fire doors in one of his hotels were wedged open. City magistrates fined Billings after hearing that a fire safety officer found five fire doors open during a routine inspection. The court heard that a fire in the basement or first floor of the Riverview Hotel, Yarmouth Road, would have spread rapidly up the main staircase, preventing an escape. Hotel staff had received no training on what to do if a fire broke out.

In 1997 Billings was fined £400 by Norwich magistrates for not servicing a gas water heater.

In 1998 Billings was ordered to pay £6000 for flouting gas appliance guidelines. A court heard Health and Safety Executive inspectors found flues, pipes, fires, cookers and boilers in a serious state of disrepair, putting tenants' lives at risk.

In 2002 a man returned to his flat to find the contents of his home piled up outside and being given away. It happened after a mix-up with his landlord, Billings, which led to the contents being emptied in the front garden and a sign placed on top, which read 'Everything Free'. When contacted by the Evening News Billings said he had nothing to say.

Link here http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Bz61-glCMYkJ:www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/eveningnews24/norwich-news/story.aspx%3Fbrand%3DENOnline%26category%3DNews%26tBrand%3DENOnline%26tCategory%3DxNews%26itemid%3DNOED16%2520Mar%25202010%252007%253A39%253A56%253A810+Michael+Billings&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

So I think it is clear from this particular thread and others like it that despite the government contentious decision to abandon some kind of regulation on the private rented sector is completely wrong. The likes of Mr Billings would never be classed as a fit and proper person, unfortunately there will be another Mr Billings and another tenant will suffer as a result.

From my experience there are to many landlords who have a total disregard to the rules and regulations that regulate the private rented sector and only observe the requirements when a person from one of the regulatory authorities appears at their door.

tbs624

As Shelter says on their Campaign page

"We think politicians are not doing enough to tackle the problem, and want to see much tougher action to bring rogue landlords to justice."