Evict a rogue Landlord - Shelter...

lynzpower

This one ( I know has been discussed on here before) is all the more shocking as the perpetrator is ( or was) a magistrate!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264194/Magistrate-ordered-pay-9-000-illegally-evicting-Romanian-tenant.html

She is most definitely a rogue.

theartfullodger

lynzpower wrote: »

This one ( I know has been discussed on here before) is all the more shocking as the perpetrator is ( or was) a magistrate!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264194/Magistrate-ordered-pay-9-000-illegally-evicting-Romanian-tenant.html

She is most definitely a rogue.

And she's wearing a cross round her neck in the picture... stone me, and she sits in moral judgement over others?? We don't want scum like that in our country as far as I'm concerned....

Artful

SouthCoast

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).

A visit to my local County Court revealed long lists of Local Authority and Housing Association evictions that I guess are [STRIKE]"fast tracked".[/STRIKE] "bulk processed" and then passed on to the private rental sector.

neverdespairgirl

No faster than others, AIUI.

MissMoneypenny

sinbad182 wrote: »

For every rogue LL, there is an irresponsible, unreliable, or outright malicious tenant.

It's a shame they can't be paired up.

MissMoneypenny

Brb wrote: »

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).

:whistle:.........

N79

Brb wrote: »

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).

Just a point, OFT don't deem terms to be unfair. OFT have their opinion on unfair terms which they can take to court should they wish. Until there is a court case though the terms are merely unfair in the OFTs eyes. The courts do not always agree with the OFT (eg bank charges).

Brb wrote: »

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).

In future I would suggest you remember that the LA is the LL's agent and the LL is responsible for their actions. So you should not need to feel that it is morally wrong to go after the LL. If they had done their job then the problems would not occur.

Brb wrote: »

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).

It would be a fair change. Unfortunately it is not a minor change at all but instead a very major change that would require a total change of all tenancy law in England (at least residential tenancy law). This is because in English law all tenancies are made up of a whole number of tenancy periods. The law simply does not allow part periods to be used. This simplifies things legally but does have a few unfortunate side effects.

Since ASTs are based, as with all tenancies, on the basic common law tenancy building blocks (which are very, very old) such a change would have to be reflected by changes to these basic building blocks. (An AST can not stand on its own. For example, the rights of a T to end an AST are not contained within statute. Another example, often quoted here, is the right to quiet enjoyment which does not exist in the definition of an AST. Both these terms are derived from common law building blocks). Ie this would require a whole new residential tenancy system.

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.

Please don't shuffle of with a blushed face. It is a fair and reasonable change. Just not simple due to the way English law developed over the last 800 years!

tbs624

Despite the fact that some rogue LLS seem to manage to operate under the radar it always useful, for both those who are decent LLs and those who are Ts, to see that some do get a trip to court:

Interesting list of prosecutions across the country,brought under the Protection From Eviction Act 1977 & associated legislation).

From the Association of Tenancy Relations Officers website at:

http://www.atro-online.com/prosecutions.html


HSE has a searchable site for notices served and many Councils have their own press/prosecutions list on their websites.

More links:

BRISTOL

CHORLEY

BURNLE

LONDON

DEWSBURY

BRADFORD

WORCESTER

ST IVES (CAMBS)

GOLCAR

BURTON ON TRENT

SWANSEA

lynzpower

Heres a list of the HSE list of convictions of landlords for failed gas safety:

http://www.healthandsafetysystem.co.uk/24.html


Defendant

Masood Iqbal Khan

Summary

Landlord does not have any gas safety certificates for a tenancy lasting 5 years approx. Appeal lodged against conviction and sentence on 14/7/2004 on the grounds that "the conviction was against the weight of the evidence and the sentence was manifestly excessive".

This case did result from non-compliance with an improvement notice

Offence Date

16/06/2001

Total Fine

£3,500.00

Total Costs Awarded to HSE

£6,000.00

Seems like the sort of thing that is fairly common on these boards: if you dont have a gas safety cert- and you cant get one no matter how hard you are negotiating- report to HSE

the HSE's gas page includes another issue we see tenants with- suspect unqualified "tradesmen" working on gas installations
One such case from the HSE:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/domestic/issues.htm

12.02.08 - Mid Wales gas engineer prosecuted for unauthorised gas work
The gas engineer was sentenced with a community order of 280 hours unpaid work and a supervision order, alongside being ordered to pay costs totalling £6750. HSE inspector Barbara Francis said: "This case provides a salutary warning for anyone doing gas work without the correct training or registration - HSE will take the strongest action possible against anyone who does not comply with the law. Their behaviour is putting lives at risk"

theartfullodger

Today's case of a Rogue Landlord

Lord and Haslewood-Ogram v Jessop (1999)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/1228.html

Damages for unlawful eviction and harassment, bed-sitting room..£5k+, the original case was appealed but Court of Appeal held the damages etc were correct and the Landlord ,MICHAEL NORMAN JESSOP , was a Rogue, appeal dismissed!
.
1st plaintiff -

she was the sole occupier of her bed-sitting room, although the bathroom and toilet were shared; that no services were provided; that the room was let weekly at a rental; that she fell into arrears of rent following a reduction of her housing benefit; that Mr Jessop constantly threatened her with eviction, telephoning almost daily and entering her room without permission, and that he was aggressive and implied that there might be violence; that on 13th July 1996 he told her to go, changed her lock and gave her no new key; that initially she came and went by way of the window, but thereafter Mr Jessop locked that as well; that Mr Jessop retained a quantity of her possessions to the value of £420; and that her deposit of £130 was not returned.

& 2nd plaintiff

she was the sole occupier of her room, although the bathroom and toilet facilities were shared; that she paid a weekly rent; that no services were provided; that she complained about the lack of heating and Mr Jessop changed the locks to her room while she was out; that her possessions were either locked in or thrown out at the rear of the house and she was left in the clothes she was wearing; that at the date of trial Mr Jessop still retained some of her possessions to the value of £210; and that at the time of these events she was trying to trace a child she had previously given up for adoption. The judge said that this was a "desperately painful time in her life". He found that she wished to travel to Yorkshire to arrange a meeting and was so anxious that she was unable to go. He found that she was extremely upset by Mr Jessop's behaviour, which was "discourteous, insulting, humiliating and threatening".

Appalling, disgraceful,!!!



Artful