Evict a rogue Landlord - Shelter...

mchale

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Indeed. This thread is about those who don't.

Then in the interests of fairness lets have 1 about rogue tenants

tbs624

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Better to bash a landlord than be bashed by a landlord, eh?

More of Clutton's paranoid posts about "LL-bashing" with mchale tagging along ......yawn, yawn.

Next we'll probably be hearing that the judges, the Council TROs and EHOs and the HSE etc involved in the cases listed here are also guilty of "LL bashing"

If mchale and Clutton are LLs who fully comply with the law then they should welcome the naughty girls and boys being pulled into line. LLing gets brought into disrepute by the actions/omissions of some LLs rather than by other people (whether LLs or not) discussing the outcome.

These are all legal cases in which LLs and/or LAs have been convicted of failing their Ts in various ways, and many of them had ample advance warning of the need to put things right.

Many of the posts and/or links have been provided by LLs themselves - those decent LLs who have no time for those in the same line of business who seek to flout the law, often endangering their Ts and/or making their lives a misery.

As can be seen from the first post by Artful, it's a follow on from Shelter's Campaign.

The value of the cases quoted is that they:

(1) can give Ts who are having a rough time evidence that LLs can and do get prosecuted for failing to meet their obligations, and

(2) may perhaps make a potentially unscrupulous LL think a little harder about literally putting their house in order.

Do , however, note that such court cases are similarly flagged up by, for example, the NLA in their magazine, by insurance companies who offer cover to LLs, by electricians and gas-safe engineers, by the team at Nearly Legal,by legal firms such as Painsmiths, by Tessa Shepperson, by ARLA, by online LAs such as Upad, and so on...... as well as local and national newspapers. Are they all "LL bashers" too?

Bottom line is that if you don't want to read the thread then don't feel obliged to.

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

the daily telegraph article is a year old - i agree its shocking.. but why is such old news being dredged up again... oh i know... its landlord bashing time again.....

I'll try to help you out Clutton.

It has specific relevance to the report that Artful flagged up - its another example of those LLs, who because of their day job, really ought to know better than to take the line of action they chose regarding their T.

It does not cease to be relevant because it took place a year ago.

theartfullodger

mchale wrote: »

Then in the interests of fairness lets have 1 about rogue tenants

Is there an echo hereabouts???

mchale has raised related stuff before

and I replied in my post #224
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=41922992&postcount=224
mchale, I repeat from that post....

If either mchale or madeupname1 wish to discuss tenant's actions in another thread be my guest.. It's a free forum...

For the avoidance of doubt I, and I suspect almost all people, am against bad/rogue landlords/agents/tenants/whatever.. But this is a rogue landlord thread (hint: see thread title...)

Cheers and seasons greetings to all, including those who disagree with me...

Artful

tbs624

Reported in the press just a week ago:

"A private landlord who failed to improve fire safety has been fined £4,000 following a blaze at the property in which the tenant narrowly escaped injury.

Islington Council had issued a fire safety improvement notice, instructing the landlord to fit fire detection equipment.

But the landlord failed to comply and the tenant of the property, in Angel, escaped from a fire only because a neighbour raised the alarm.

Nadia Boujema was sentenced to a fine of £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,200 towards the victim support fund.


...........The case was one of several brought to court by Islington Council against private sector landlords who “fail to provide safe and acceptable quality accommodation”.

Two other cases involved families living in accommodation badly affected by untreated damp, leading to fines of more than £2000 for each landlord.

More here : Source

theartfullodger

9 Cases of Landlords or agents being prosecuted for a whole range of offences...

Thank you Tessa S!
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/12/19/landlords-and-agents-prosecuted-for-breach-of-regulations/

It shows that landlords and agents ARE being prosecuted (and fined by the Courts – sometimes quite heavily)..

..
R v Weston and Williams - Worcester Crown Court

Here the defendants ran a letting agency called Premier Places in Redditch and Worcester. They were members of TDS but failed to ring fence tenancy deposit funds. This eventually cost the TDS scheme more than £63,000 when it had to pay out to the tenants.
Weston, who ran the business, pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud at Worcester Crown Court and Williams pleaded guilty to three counts of forgery. They were given suspended prison sentences and ordered to undertake community service.
A report linked to from Destin states that TDS were furious at this sentance which they felt was unduly lenient. However the Judge is reported as saying that Weston was bankrupt and the events had had a devastating effect on his family; also he exhibited genuine remorse.
..
R v Mathew Richard Tapper – Brent Magistrates Court

Here Tapper was a private sector landlord prosecuted by Harrow Council for failing to rectify ‘excess cold’ hazards at his property.
The total fine and costs came to £3,505
..
R v Christopher Stewart Andrews – Redhill Magistrates Court

Here the prosecution was brought by Reigate & Banstead BC after the defendant failed to carry out works to reduce the risks from fire in a basement flat at 58 London Road, Redhill.
He did not attend the hearing but in his absence was fined the maximum penalty of £5000 and ordered to pay the Council’s full costs of £1100.
A total of £6,100.
..
R v Martin Horsfall – Leeds Magistrates Court

Leeds CC declared a selective licensing area in part of its district (Cross Green and East End Park). The defendant had four properties which he failed to license despite being asked to do so by the Council (although he denied recieving them). The report on the Council website stated:

Council officers went to considerable lengths to engage with Mr Horsfall …. Mr Horsfall denied receiving any correspondence or having any recollection of any of the phone calls despite records of the conversations being made.
Mr Horsfall applied to have his case reopened after originally being prosecuted on the 17 of March 2011 in his absence. He claimed he had not received the legal summonses due to him moving address, despite seven of the summonses being opened and returned to the courts.
Mr Horsfall’s properties gave further cause for concern after visits were made to one of his properties by officers of the council which highlighted a serious lack of fire safety provision.

He was fined £14,000 plus costs of over £6,817.62. Total £20,817.62.
..
R v Peter and Frances Kavanagh – Salford Magistrates Court

This is another failure to comply with selective licensing. The report in Salford Online states
The Kavanagh’s failed to show at court and were found guilty in their absence. They were each fined £525 for every property they failed to get a licence for – amounting to £5,250.
They were also ordered to pay £580 towards court costs and £30 in victims surcharges.
So that is a total of £5,860
..
R v Blue Square Projects - Nuneaton Magistrates Court

This is prosecution for failure to comply with an improvement notice relating to a dangerous property.

Blue Square Projects of Edgbaston were renting out a property in Dordon to the tenant, her partner and four children. Following the tenant’s complaint to North Warwickshire Borough Council, the Environmental Health Team visited the property to find rotten windows, mould in the bathroom, bedroom and living room, faulty radiators and overloaded electrical sockets. The Council then advised Blue Square Projects to rectify the damage, which they subsequently failed to do.

However, surprise surprise, the work did not get done.

Assistant Director: Housing, Angela Coates explained : ” This was a catalogue of disasters, with contractors turning up when the tenant was absent or not turning up at all when promised. “

As the property was still a risk to the health and safety of the tenants, the Council decided to take the matter to court, and to carry out the works themselves and recharge Blue Square Projects.
The company was fined £2,093 after his solicitors pleaded guilty on his behalf by post.
..
R v Bis-Mil-Lah Enterprises Ltd – Luton Magistrates Court

Here the defendant owned two detached outbuildings of a property at 50 Brook Street which were being used as self-contained dwellings without planning permission. An enforcement notice was served by Luton Council because the buildings were being let for accommodation without planning permission and were unsuitable as residential premises.
Needless to say, the company failed to comply with the notice. Taking account of the benefit derived from the letting, the company was fined £15,000 for non-compliance and ordered it to pay a £10,000 contribution towards the Council’s costs.
Total £25,000.
..
R v Karen Gamon – Bodmin Magistrates Court

This case involves breaches of the House in Multiple Occupation Management Regulations by the defendant landlord Ms Gamon.

Miss Gamon was informed of the HMO Management Regulations breaches by the Council but failed over a significant period of time to carry out necessary works to improve the standards in her property to an acceptable level.
Works specified included the requirements to remove stored combustibles restricting safe use of the means of escape in the property, make safe the loose and cracked concrete tiled entrance pathway steps, remedy penetrating damp to the ground floor porch and remove large accumulations of refuse to the rear of the property.

She was fined £1,700 with costs of £173.67 and a £15 victim surcharge – total £1,888.67.
..
R v Darren Harrison – Burton Magistrates Court

This is another case involving breach of the HMO regulations.

when council officers inspected Mr Harrison’s property in Elizabeth Drive, Tamworth in November last year, the smoke alarm system was not working, he failed to provide the local authority with gas and electrical safety certificates for the property, the bathroom and shower areas were poorly maintained and unhygienic, the light fitting in the ground floor toilet was defective and could not be used, the kitchen was in an unhygienic condition and there was no notice on display providing contact information to the occupants of the premises.

Harrison (who operates as Staffordshire Lettings) failed to provide the council with gas and electrical safety certificates for the property.
He was fined £4,965 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,400, plus a £15 victim surcharge. A total of £7,380.

*****

Nine cases with nine different penalties. They seem fairly variable to me, but at least it shows that successful prosecutions are being done.

tbs624

Common denominator there with many of those cases - the LLs were given the chance to rectify the issues but failed to do so. I note that in three of the cases (Nuneaton, Redhill & Salford) the LLs were not present in Court - IMO they should be *made* to appear.

Have to say that Leeds Council does seem to be pretty diligent when it comes to dealing with LLs who fail to keep their properties in appropriate condition.

Here's one in Manchester :

A landlord has been ordered to hand over £41,000 for renting out flats with potentially lethal problems.

Lay Heng Chhung, 54, owned some properties in Manchester city centre that were so dangerous the occupants had to be rehoused, a court heard.
Chhung – who has a string of properties across the region – took a ‘cavalier attitude’ to managing homes, a judge said.

Fire extinguishers and smoke detectors were missing while some fire exits were blocked or in bad repair at the flats, above a bar on Portland Street. Electrical sockets were also found overheated and smoking, it was said.

The defendant had borrowed heavily and many of his properties were in negative equity, leading to financial difficulties, his defence solicitor argued.

Chhung, of Moston Lane, Moston, earlier admitted 13 offences – eight relating to housing conditions and five for owning properties without a licence. The unlicensed homes were in Kenyon Lane and Oakdene Street in Moston, Delamere Street in Openshaw, and Craig Road in Gorton.
He was fined £31,000 and ordered to pay £9,184 costs

Source

N79

tbs624 wrote: »

I note that in three of the cases (Nuneaton, Redhill & Salford) the LLs were not present in Court - IMO they should be *made* to appear.

Why? In particular, why should LL's be treated less favourably than other defendants when faced with non custodial sentences (where there is also no obligation to appear).

Also, one of those cases was a company. Just how do you expect to get that particular LL in the dock?

theartfullodger

My thanks to Garden Court Chambers & the HSE for raising this one...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2011/coi-ldn-0912.htm

Croydon landlord fined over carbon monoxide poisoning

Date:9 December 2011

Release No:COILON/0912

A Croydon landlord was prosecuted after five of his tenants needed hospital treatment for carbon monoxide poisoning.

City of London Magistrates' Court heard that on 4 March 2009 ambulance and fire crews were called to an address in Elgin Road, Croydon, where they found several people suffering flu-like symptoms and dizziness. One tenant thought he was having a heart attack.

Five residents were taken from the property, belonging to landlord James Long, to Princess Royal University hospital suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning. Three needed to be transferred to Whipps Cross hospital for specialist hyperbaric treatment.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found Mr Long did not have a landlord's gas safety certificate covering the property, meaning the gas hob, boiler and flue had not been inspected by a qualified gas engineer.

It was discovered the carbon monoxide was coming from a gas boiler in the cellar and gas engineers found a taped-up air vent had led to insufficient fresh air coming into the cellar.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Matthew Raine said:
"This carbon monoxide poisoning could easily have been fatal. If Mr Long had fulfiled his legal obligation to get the property inspected, he would have been made aware just how dangerous it was for the air vent to be taped-up. Mr Long disregarded his landlord duties and put his tenants at grave risk.

"Every year, around 20 people die and many others suffer ill-health from carbon monoxide poisoning. Landlords who put their tenants in danger will be prosecuted."

Mr Long of Elgin Road, Croydon, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 36(3)(a) of the of the Gas Safety (installation and Use) Regulations 1998. He was fined a total of £24,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,000.

tbs624

Here's another one on failing to meet gas safety regs

Landlord prosecuted after Blackburn family put at risk

6 January 2012

A landlord has been fined after he failed to make sure gas safety checks were carried out at a house in Blackburn, putting a family of eight at risk.

Rashid Hussain was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after he ignored repeated warnings about not arranging an annual visit by a registered gas engineer to a property on Longshaw Lane in the town.

Blackburn Magistrates' Court heard Mr Hussain had provided proof to his tenants of a gas safety check when he first rented out the property to a couple and their six young children in September 2008.

But the 29-year-old failed to get a registered gas engineer to carry out another check a year later. He was served with an Improvement Notice by HSE in November 2010, requiring him to arrange an inspection within 21 days, but he failed to act on this.

Mr Hussain, of Walter Street in Blackburn, admitted breaches of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £8,000 in prosecution costs on 6 January 2012.

The court was told that Mr Hussain had also been prosecuted by Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council in 2011 for two other offences at the same address.

He was found guilty of renting out the property without getting a suitable licence from the council, and ignoring an Improvement Notice issued after the house was found not to be in a fit state to live in. In that case, Mr Hussain was ordered to pay more than £10,000 in fines and costs, later reduced to just over £6,500 on appeal.

My bolding. Having been slapped with hefty fines and costs previously one would have thought this LL would have (a) made sure he met his obligations in the future and (b) understood what would be coming his way when failing to do so or act as required by the subsequent HSE Improvement Notice.

Source