Evict a rogue Landlord - Shelter...

tbs624

Nice to read of a Student Union helping its members get redress from an errant LL - spot of LL lock changing, failure to register deposit.....

On Friday 7th January, Oxford Brookes Students Union Advice Centre helped five students win a court case against their landlord.

The students had been in the property for 10 months, when the landlord decided he wanted to do some work to the house. Instead of negotiating with the tenants, he changed the locks without any notice, effectively illegally evicting them.

The students sought the advice of the Students’ Union Advice Centre. Their Adviser, Jo Cox, quickly established that not only had the landlord acted illegally, but had not protected their deposit in one of the Government approved Tenancy Deposit Schemes. She advised the students that they could report the eviction to the police as it is a criminal matter, and take the landlord to the County Court to recover the overpaid rent and seek redress for the unprotected deposit.

The Housing Act 2004 allows Courts to award three times the amount of the deposit when a landlord has failed to protect it. The Judge in the case awarded the students this amount, plus the over paid rent, totalling nearly £8,500! The Judge praised the thorough way that the adviser had prepared the case, and was pleased that the Students’ Union was able to support its members in such a way.

Source

Another successful student claim for an unregistered deposit, this time from York - source

theartfullodger

My thanks are due to " Landlord & Buy-to-Let magazine: " for bringing this to my attention.

A landlord who illegally rented out a "damp, mouldy and rotting" house has been fined £17,000. "Not fit to keep an animal in.."

See.. (Thank you Leicester Mercury...)

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Landlord-fined-renting-house-fit-animal/article-3078954-detail/article.html

Anthony Gordon, of St Saviour's Road, Spinney Hills, Leicester, was told his home was not fit "to keep an animal in".

Environmental health inspectors found damp and mouldy ceilings, rotting joists and floorboards, a toilet with no seat or lid, no light bulbs, unsafe handrails and an overgrown backyard filled with old furniture, wood and a push-chair during an inspection in August.

Leicester magistrates' heard Gordon and three tenants were living there, although he did not have a licence to rent the house to multiple occupants.
Stay one step ahead of the weather

Yesterday's hearing was held in his absence after he failed to respond to summonses issued by Leicester City Council.

BornAtTheRightTime

2 weeks after the end of our AST, my ex-landlady has just emailed me saying that as they have been unable to get new tenants and because of the difficulties accessing the property prior to the end of our AST (I refused visits while sick with flu, but allowed block viewings on a Saturday morning a week before the end AND gave the keys back a week early giving the agents free access!) they request, as a matter of goodwill, that I agree to a deduction from my deposit due to loss of rent.

This being the same landlady who listed the property with 3 agents, passed out my mobile phone number to them resulting in 24 texts, emails and calls in the space of 3 days while sick, and saw nothing wrong with one agent planning on letting themselves in because I had refused viewings' access on that day.
Thank goodness I insisted on deposit protection; and she didn't manage that for the first 3 weeks of the AST. In fact she wasn't going to do it at all!

tbs624

"Oxford Letting Agent Prosecuted


An Oxford Letting Agent has been prosecuted for failing to manage a house in multiple occupation (HMO) in the same week that Oxford City Council launched its groundbreaking new scheme to licence every HMO in the city.

Oxford Letting and Property Management Ltd of Cowley Road pleaded guilty to three offences of failing to manage a HMO.

They pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the means of escape from fire were kept in good repair, failing to repair the common parts of the property and failing to repair damaged windows. ........................ ..................... several fire doors were in poor repair and fire resistant glazing was damaged. In the kitchen there were damaged units, loose worktops and an extractor fan was hanging off the wall. A second floor window was also noted to be in serious disrepair.

Oxford Letting and Property Management Ltd were the managing agents for the property and had responsibilities under the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 to ensure the house was kept in a safe condition."

Fined £2000, ordered to pay costs of £910

Source

tbs624

"A West Bromwich letting agent has been fined £3,120 and ordered to pay £3,417.53 in costs for fraudulently making false claims about his business. The matter came to light following a complaint made to Sandwell Council's Trading Standards Service.

At Warley magistrates Amerjit Singh Dhuga, trading as wli.uk.com based at 101 High Street, West Bromwich, pleaded guilty to 26 offences including three under the Fraud Act for fraudulently making false claims about his business.

Dhuga admitted making the false claims concerning his business in that wli.uk.com was a member of the Property Ombudsman lettings and sales schemes, the OFT approved code, the National Approved Letting scheme, Midland Landlord Accreditation Scheme, the Association of Residential Letting Agents and the statement "2010 Independent Award Winning Accredited Agency". "

Source ( 28 Jan 2011)

You may want to check your LA's claimed credentials direct with ARLA, NAEA etc

tbs624

"Llanelli landlord fined more than £7,000 after tenants left living in severe damp

By julia bosnyak

A LANDLORD has been slammed with more than a £7,000 fine after tenants in two of his properties were left living in severe damp conditions.

City magistrates heard that Leyton Harvard of Heol Llanelli, Trimsaran, rented out more than 10 properties in the Swansea area, and the two houses relevant to the case were both in Longview Road, Clase.

The court heard that tenants were subjected to living conditions including inadequate fire escape facilities and no heating or hot water."

Source
Feb 7 2011

tbs624

"......the landlord of a house in multiple occupation (HMO) at 82 Ledgers Road, has today (14 January 2011) been fined more than £5,000 for running an unsafe and badly maintained property.

The prosecution by Slough Borough Council followed an inspection of the property on 31 August 2010. .......

........He was fined £3,500, costs of £1,765.05 and a victim surcharge of £15 – totalling £5,280.05."

Source - couple of photos included.14 Jan 2011

theartfullodger

I am indebted to Legal Action's Journal for bringing this gentleman to my attention...

http://www.lag.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=88852

Strydom v Fowler. Brentford County Court 24 November 2010

A County Court case involving possession, unlawful eviction, trespass and Housing Act 1988 s27 and s28...............

Mr F was the assured shorthold tenant, on what had become a statutory periodic tenancy. The landlord was Mr S. Mr F built up rent arrears, eventually agreed at £2189, after the deduction of the deposit. On 16 May 2008, Mr S began possession proceedings, alleging rent arrears and damage to the property. At about this time, Mr F texted Mr S saying that he would be ‘out in two weeks, maybe sooner’.

Mr F went on holiday. On his return on 27 May he found the locks changed. He forced entry and found Mr S inside holding an iron bar. Mr F ran, breaking his heel climbing over a gate.

Mr F counterclaimed in the possession claim for damages under s.27 and s.28 Housing Act 1988, breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment and trespass.

At trial HHJ Oppenheimer awarded £2,600 to Mr S for rent arrears and damage to the property.

On Mr F’s counterclaim, he found that there was a threat of physical violence. Mr F’s text was only an expression of an intention to leave, not a determination of the tenancy. Mr S had entered unlawfully and did not have reasonable cause to believe Mr F had left, as the beds were made and toiletries present.

The agreed difference in the value of the property with vacant possession and with Mr F in occupation was £12,500. Taking Mr F’s conduct into account under s.27(7), given that it was unreasonable of Mr F not to have been in touch for 5 weeks or responded to text messages, the statutory damages were reduced to £2,500.

Damages for breach of covenant were assessed at £3,000

Aggravated damages for trespass assessed at £1,250

Total damages on the counterclaim £6,750, to be set against the award to Mr S.

Source..
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/02/on-crowbars-and-considered-conduct/

Cheers!

Artful

madeupname1

theartfullodger wrote: »

I am indebted to Legal Action's Journal for bringing this gentleman to my attention...

http://www.lag.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=88852

Strydom v Fowler. Brentford County Court 24 November 2010



Source..
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/02/on-crowbars-and-considered-conduct/

Cheers!

Artful

I find your posts quite curious. I assume you are referring to Mr S when you say that you are glad that the LAG has brought this gentlemen to you attention. Whilst there is no doubt Mr. S's behaviour cannot be excused, T is hardly a sympathetic figure. He had built up rent arrears of over £2,000 and caused damage to the Property. He then refused to move out, having indicated that he would. He unreasonably refused to engage in dialogue for 5 weeks and to top it off, notwithstanding his rent arrears, somehow managed to find at least some money to go away on holiday. Frankly, his behaviour is pretty appalling too, yet you don't seem to level any kind of criticism at his door ...

Turnbull2000

tbs624 wrote: »

"......the landlord of a house in multiple occupation (HMO) at 82 Ledgers Road, has today (14 January 2011) been fined more than £5,000 for running an unsafe and badly maintained property.

The prosecution by Slough Borough Council followed an inspection of the property on 31 August 2010. .......

........He was fined £3,500, costs of £1,765.05 and a victim surcharge of £15 – totalling £5,280.05."

Source - couple of photos included.14 Jan 2011

That's probably pennies compared to the income an HMO can provide. Not much of a discouragement at all.