Evict a rogue Landlord - Shelter...

tbs624

And then we have the dodgy LAs, defrauding the LHA/HB system- see here

clutton_2

""The NLA is calling on local authorities to prosecute landlords who wilfully ignore laws aimed at protecting tenants.

A new investigation by the housing charity Shelter found that a 'small but dangerous' group of landlords are bringing the whole private-rented sector into disrepute.
David Salusbury, Chairman NLA, calling for further action by councils, said:

'We roundly condemn the worst excesses in the private-rented sector where a small minority of landlords choose to exploit their tenants by offering sub-standard property which can endanger lives. This is unacceptable and local authorities must act.'

'We agree with Shelter that most private landlords are responsible and honest in how they deal with their tenants and look after their properties. But where landlords wilfully ignore the rules and regulations put in place to protect tenants, landlords should expect severe penalties.'

'If this rogue element within the sector goes unchallenged, then reputable landlords are tarnished and the image of the private-rented sector is damaged.'

NLA Accreditation helps landlords distance themselves from the rogues and show they adhere to good practice.

theartfullodger

Saturday's featured Rogue Landlord - The London Borough of Brent(!)

Most Landlords are decent & honest, as most tenants are decent & honest. But note this..
http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/Housn19951995.php

Brent London Borough Council -v- Carmel Murphy [1995] 28 HLR 203

.

The defendant was a secure tenant. When she was sued for arrears of rent, she counterclaimed for damages for breach of the landlord’s obligation to repair for over seven years. The judge awarded her general damages for diminution of the value of the tenancy calculated by reference to a reduction in the rent payable and general damages by reference to an annual sum. The award totalled £50,000. Held: Leave to appeal was refused. One ground of appeal was that the awards of damages were excessive. Roch LJ said that there was no indication that the awards were wrong in principle or excessive in amount. Damages may be awarded on both bases.

RecoveringAlcoholic

Crack House Closure Orders!

Nightmare Brighton tenant kicked out


http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8385626.Nightmare_Brighton_tenant_kicked_out/

BitterAndTwisted

Kind of interesting that the LA had boarded up the flat preventing entry before they'd applied for possession.

neverdespairgirl

dopester wrote: »

Another slippery little chancer, full of me me me, and full of accusations about others. Whilst trying to champion himself to everyone as the wronged party - with a history of suspicious behaviour, including to another tenant.

Yes, a very nasty piece of work, too.

theartfullodger

Whilst recognizing that most landlords are responsible, Sunday's featured Landlord is English Churches Housing (as a Registered Social Landlord).

English Churches Housing Group v Shine [2004] EWCA Civ 434; [2004] H.L.R.42. (Disrepair)


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/434.html

Mr Shine was a secure tenant, wanted damages under Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 s11. Liability agreed. Discussion was how much damages. Significant damp from leak beneath a bath, not fixed.

Mr Shine was awarded £8000 damages but with some set-off, but it's a complicated case (well, at least it is to me, very much the layman..).

Cheers!

Artful

Brb

dopester wrote: »

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."

Apologies for lateness of response. I've felt out of sorts past couple of days.

When I mean educating them. I mean educating them to the point where these LLs find out that they are indeed a business and that there are legal implications. Not for a moment do I think they should receive free training or free in-depth legal advice. Education is probably the totally wrong word for me to use. Spread awareness maybe sound better ?

N79 wrote: »

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).

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.



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.

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!

Thanks for the comments N79 My thoughts on the OFT is that they took the time to list terms they have found that they consider to be unfair. Thats good enough for me at the end of the day and sounds far better than simply 1 unknown, unimportant person like myself simply stating a term is unfair. I do get what you mean though. I couldn't waggle the contract in their face and tell them they can't enforce it just because OFT say it's unfair.

With regard to the LA I did say rightly or wrongly but I shall always hold them morally responsible for what happened. I did consider writing to the LLs but it was an incredibly difficult time and I basically did my best just to survive and get on with it.

Forgive me for being naive regarding how old these laws are. I did think that change would be little (like when advice is given to tenants that although they may have signed an AST saying they'd need to give LL two month's notice they do actually only need to give one regardless of what contract says). I thought (stupidly) that it could be just amended slightly.

BitterAndTwisted

theartfullodger wrote: »

Whilst recognizing that most landlords are responsible, Sunday's featured Landlord is English Churches Housing (as a Registered Social Landlord).

English Churches Housing Group v Shine [2004] EWCA Civ 434; [2004] H.L.R.42. (Disrepair)


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/434.html

Mr Shine was a secure tenant, wanted damages under Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 s11. Liability agreed. Discussion was how much damages. Significant damp from leak beneath a bath, not fixed.

Mr Shine was awarded £8000 damages but with some set-off, but it's a complicated case (well, at least it is to me, very much the layman..).

Cheers!

Artful

Nice find Artful! I've read most of that transcript and it makes for rather amusing reading. As Mr Avrom Shine's last request to the court for punitive damages was for TEN MILLION QUID I suspect the £8k finally agreed felt like very small beer. Still, I think it was petty in the extreme for the LL to contest it at all but as the transcript says Mr Shine was rather "difficult".

ETA: After Googling Mr Shine it appears that he might be a bit of a serial litigant. Possibly emboldened by his success when representing himself against his LL he's also issued proceeding against the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and made an Application for Judicial Review. Hehe

lynzpower

Another angle of those rogue lanlords is those who run illegal unlicense HMOs. Ill look around to find more of these reports later, but there are plenty out there

In November 2009, the Council's Housing Improvement Team discovered that 29 Albion Road in Ramsgate, which was then a licensed HMO, was operating in contravention of licence conditions. During the routine inspection, officers found various rooms not being used in accordance with the licence. As many of the rooms were small, a communal lounge was required to be made available, but one had not.

Some toilet and bathroom facilities had been screwed shut and one man was living in an undersized room. Two additional kitchens, which were required to cater for the number of potential residents, had not been installed. The gas central heating system had not worked since the previous summer and the council had not been provided with any valid gas safety certificates.

Following the discovery, the co-owner and licence holder of the premises, Michael Harnett, 49, of West Cliff Road, Broadstairs, was interviewed under caution at the council offices. In the council’s opinion, he did not provide a reasonable excuse for failing to maintain and improve the property, as required by the conditions of his licence. As a result, he was prosecuted for the offence.

In a case heard at Thanet Magistrates Court, Mr. Harnett pleaded guilty to failing to comply with his licence and was fined £2,000, to which a £15 victim surcharge was added. He was also ordered to pay a contribution of £100 towards the council's prosecution costs.

Cllr. Chris Wells, Cabinet Member for Community Services, said: "HMOs are often linked to bad management and anti-social behaviour. This is why HMO licensing is so important, as it helps us to ensure that tenants are kept safe and neighbours are not unduly disturbed. This case should be a reminder to landlords that simply obtaining a licence is not good enough. Licence conditions must be complied with, or the council will take the necessary enforcement action. In this case, most of the licence conditions had been ignored, which is completely unacceptable. All landlords need to understand that we will not tolerate the creation and maintenance of slum conditions, and will pursue those who disregard their responsibilities with every power at our disposal.”

http://www.thanet.gov.uk/news/latest-press-releases/hmo-prosecution.aspx