Evict a rogue Landlord - Shelter...

StudentMoneySaver

It gets a bit tedious when people hark on about 'Professional Tenants' and the like when talking about reform of Private Letting laws. As has been mentioned already, being a Landlord is a business and it should be approached appropriately, taking into account both the rewards and the risks. The fact that Landlords often do not adequately protect themselves against the negatives of renting their property is not a matter for Parliament to act on.

On the other hand, Tenants are not business people, they are normal citizens who are looking for a place to live. The laws should be in place to protect tenants and wider society from rogue Landlords, ideally it would ensure that potential rogue Landlords cannot practice in the first place (through a compulsory training leading to a license) but if the laws have to be reactionary (i.e. enforceable after the event, prison sentences and fines) then so be it.

All Landlords are in the position to protect themselves from bad tenants (referencing, insurance and being knowledgeable) but Tenants are rarely prepared for the effects of a bad Landlord.

Brb

tbs624 wrote: »

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/36463715#Comment_36463715

"Rogue" LA.

Thanks. I would love to name and shame them but I live in a village location and they would know instantly it's me if they saw it. It does pain me to see the monopoly they have around here. When I see their boards dotted everywhere I want to stick a piece of paper over it stating that 98 out of their 130 AST contract terms have been deemed unfair by the OFT trading (approx number, I'd have to dig out old agreement to get exact figures, I WAS shocked when I read one of the OFT links kindly provided by previous poster on another thread). Plus many other things (like outright asking me to falsify my contents insurance claim, which I refused to do).

Anyway, back on topic I'm sorry

I took the shelter quiz on tenants' rights and yup got 10/10 (to be honest though you'd have to be pretty dumb not to get 10/10).

I'm considering drafting my past experiences and sending to shelter. I could have sued over one experience but it would have been the LL I sued so I chose not to (rightly or wrongly I morally hold the LA responsible).

Wonder if shelter would also be interested in tweaking the housing act. Just a little amendment I'd like to see. It could be sold to the government as a cost saving exercise too

I believe that when a LL has served their tenant a S21 that they are no longer entitled to recieve a specific notice in return and any days dealt with on a pro-rata basis. Often tenants are forced to pay a month's rent in respect of two properties because currently LLs having served their tenant a S21 are still entitled to a month's notice from a tenant if/when they've found somewhere and some LLs demand that notice ties in with the rental periods.

Where I believe the government could save money is that LHA claimants can claim rent in respect of two properties when there is an overlap.

I'd be interested in what ppl here would think of that ? it was something that really upset me (had to pay £500 for 3 days). Because I'm a moral person I paid it on time (well actually for entire tenancy I paid my rent over a week early to tie in with their mortgage payment).

If others thought that it would be a fair change then I'd ask someone to draft something more eloquently than I to submit to shelter ? if you all think it's naff I'll shuffle out of thread blushed face instead LOL.

theartfullodger

Rogue Landlord, £45k+ damages, unlawful eviction...
Hunt v Hussain, Epsom County Court 31 July 2009

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/10/unlawful-eviction-quantum-from-legal-action/

Cheers!

Artful

dopester

Brb wrote: »

Accidental LLs need educating. Some just are not aware that they are a business and as such have legal obligations and undertake some risks. With some education these bad accidental LLs could become good LLs.

I'm in broad agreement with a lot of your posts, but disagree with your landlords "need educating" theme.

You said something similar on the "tent" thread.

I've got to disagree with you. It's up to the landlord to educate themselves (so many resources), or pay and take professional advice. All the information they need is out there. Who is going to pay for the education campaign you want?

Instead of continuing to have a climate of no or very few penalties or prosecutions for landlords who take the p!ss. It's only a business in which you're handing over property, in many cases worth tens of hundreds of thousands of pounds. That falls upon the potential landlord to find out as much as possible about what is involved.

Not continuing to allow the ignorant landlords out there to make a mockery of laws, whilst good landlords take the time/risk/lawful approach in remaining good landlords..... then let the ignorant landlords off whatever wrong they've committed against th tenant by telling them... "aww we'll lay on a special education course for you so less chance of you breaking laws again.. and let you off again next time too if there was something you misunderstood about it."

Brb wrote: »

There needs to be more education. Like the ad on TV for LL insurance. "If something was to happen ..... etc". Obviously it's for advertising their own product but it does give a slight indication that rules are different when you've rented your house out.

Maybe an advert with dom littlewood:

Dom walking down some residential street.

Dom: Have you decided to rent out your home ..... ? don't think you're a business ..... ? well I'm here to tell you, you're wrong

Dramatic pose in front of residential house.

Dom: For example you can forget knocking on that front door without permission from your tenant first.

It could go through a few salient points and then end with a website that helps new/accidental LLs.

Good to see thread still here *touch wood*

Googlewhacker

StudentMoneySaver wrote: »

It gets a bit tedious when people hark on about 'Professional Tenants' and the like when talking about reform of Private Letting laws. As has been mentioned already, being a Landlord is a business and it should be approached appropriately, taking into account both the rewards and the risks. The fact that Landlords often do not adequately protect themselves against the negatives of renting their property is not a matter for Parliament to act on.

On the other hand, Tenants are not business people, they are normal citizens who are looking for a place to live. The laws should be in place to protect tenants and wider society from rogue Landlords, ideally it would ensure that potential rogue Landlords cannot practice in the first place (through a compulsory training leading to a license) but if the laws have to be reactionary (i.e. enforceable after the event, prison sentences and fines) then so be it.

All Landlords are in the position to protect themselves from bad tenants (referencing, insurance and being knowledgeable) but Tenants are rarely prepared for the effects of a bad Landlord.

Tenants being ill prepared is not the fault of the landlords and vice versa.

The laws are in favour of the tenant, just look at how long it can take a landlord to evict someone that wants to play the game, it is far to long and there needs to be more so that the Landlord can get their property back quicker and as such keep trading successfully.

Googlewhacker

theartfullodger wrote: »

Rogue Landlord, £45k+ damages, unlawful eviction...
Hunt v Hussain, Epsom County Court 31 July 2009

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/10/unlawful-eviction-quantum-from-legal-action/

Cheers!

Artful

It says they wanted to appeal, does anyone know if they did and the outcome?

theartfullodger

Googlewhacker wrote: »

It says they wanted to appeal, does anyone know if they did and the outcome?

Well here

http://www.propertydrum.com/articles/eviction

dated 2nd June 2010 there is no mention of the appeal but the damages are noted as

His Honour Judge Reid QC awarded damages totalling £56,678

Cheers!

Artful

PS I plan to post an interesting Rogue Landlord case each day for a week... watch this space! (yup, others can play too!!)

StudentMoneySaver

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Tenants being ill prepared is not the fault of the landlords and vice versa.

Tenants have no reason to be prepared for the devastation a rogue Landlords can cause (remember, we're talking about rogues, not Landlords in general). On the other hand, rogue Landlords (both wilfully rogue and those who become rogue due to ignorance) can cause a million and one problems for both tenants and the local community.

Googlewhacker wrote: »

The laws are in favour of the tenant, just look at how long it can take a landlord to evict someone that wants to play the game, it is far to long and there needs to be more so that the Landlord can get their property back quicker and as such keep trading successfully.

The law is not the reason for the delays in repossessions, it is the finite resources of the courts. Very few people want to see a massive investment in the civil court system to aid what amounts to a minority interest in the grand scheme of things.

All suggestions for speeding up the repossessions are dangerous because the severely reduce the ability for someone to check if the case has any validity. If we allow fast track evictions for rent arrears we could end up with a situation where cases are fabricated or where the fact rent is not due in the first place is overlooked (e.g. if the Landlord has not provided a valid address for service).

lynzpower

Cashmere v. Walsh, Downing and Veale – Central London County Court, 27 October 2009
In this case Mr Cashmere had an assured tenancy of a flat in the Docklands from 1990. The flat was bought by Ms Downing in 2000 as a ‘bare trustee’ for Mr Walsh. Ms Veale was Ms Downings mother and an associate of Mr Walsh.

There were a number of problems with the flat’s condition, for example an inoperative heater, a defective toilet handle, and the like. In December 2007 Ms Downing and Ms Veale asked him to move out so that repair works could be done He did this, handed the keys over, and allowed the landlord to clear the flat of his belongings.

The repair works were done, but when Mr Cashmere asked for a key so he could move back in again, this was refused. He was told that he could not have they keys or his possessions back because there were rent arrears. He tried several times to contact them, and his solicitors wrote, but were told that Mr Walsh was now the owner and that a new tenant was now in occupation.

At the hearing HHJ Cowell found that Mr Cashmere had been duped into handing over the keys and that there had never been any intention of letting him have the flat back. Damages were awarded as follows:

Mr Walsh (as owner of the premises) £73,215
Ms Downing (as co-owner just before the eviction and Mr Walsh’s agent at all times) £33,715
Ms Veale (as agent of Mr Walsh and a controlling influence over the others) £24,515.
These were calculated as follows:

£9,200 for disrepair – £1,200 for the first 3 years (ie £400 pa or 4% of the rent) and £8,000 for the rest of the time (about 15% of the rent)
£47,000 against Mr Walsh under s27 and s28 of the Housing Act 1988. Although Mr Cashmere had arrears of some £7,000 and had sometimes caused a nuisance, it was clear that the real reason for the eviction was so that they could sell the flat. Therefore no reduction was made for the rent arrears or nuisance.
£8,000 against Ms Veale and Ms Downing for their part in the deception and their refusal to hand over the keys which amounted to trespass
£500 for failure to repay the deposit
£6,515 for Mr Cashmere’s belongings which were never recovered
£10,000 aggravated damages against all three defendants. They had lied throughout, including lying about there being a new tenant, which had had the effect of preventing Mr Cashmere’s solicitors from applying for an injunction for re-reinstatement.
An eye popping total of £81,215! I expect Mr Cashmere is feeling a bit better about things now

.

An interesting one from Tessa! http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/01/15/two-harassment-and-unlawful-eviction-damages-cases-2/

lynzpower

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/legacy/news/pressreleasedetail.asp?id=7155 Just a few short days ago, Wandsworth posted this report of landlords also illegally evicting.