Evict a rogue Landlord - Shelter...

lynzpower

http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/press-releases/2010-06/running-unlicensed-hmo-costs-married-couple-over-30000.en;jsessionid=95C41E5B8B607BAE605784F2C4EC9061

reease Date: 3 June 2010

A married couple prosecuted by Watford Borough Council for running an unlicensed house in multiple occupation were ordered to pay fines and costs totalling over £30,000 by Magistrates.

Mr and Mrs Shah of Falcon Way, Harrow bought a four story house located on Stratford Road, Watford in late 2007 and converted it into a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) housing 12 people.

Environmental Health Officers requested Mr Shah license the property on numerous occasions from March 2008, and when it was later discovered that Mrs Shah was in fact the registered owner she was then subsequently also asked to license the property. Whilst some works were undertaken at the property to improve the safety of the house, the couple still failed to apply for the licence. The license sets out how many people can live at the property and conditions to ensure the property is managed appropriately.

The continuing failure to apply for the licence led the council to take legal proceedings against the couple, with them both appearing at Hemel Hempstead Magistrates Court in April 2010, charged with having control of, and managing a HMO without a license.

Mr Shah pleaded guilty to both charges and to give credit for his early guilty plea, was fined £4,500 for each offence and order to pay £5,000 towards the prosecution’s costs.

Mrs Shah pleaded not guilty, the basis of her defence being that she left the running of the HMO to her husband and was unaware of the situation. Evidence was presented to show this was not the case and Mrs Shah was also found guilty of both charges and was fined £5,000 for each offence. She too was ordered to pay £6,169 towards the prosecution’s costs.

Elected Mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill, said: “Watford Borough Council will continue to protect tenants by making sure homes are safe and healthy. The law surrounding the running of HMO’s is clear.

lynzpower

Worth reproucing from Chartere Institute of Environmental Health this essential info for anyone with a rogue:

n

formation for tenants

If you are renting from a private landlord and you are experiencing poor housing conditions, your local council environmental health department may be able to help you. Contact details can be found on your council’s website which you can access via the Directgov website. If you can’t find an environmental health department, try searching under ‘private sector housing’.

If you are renting from the council, your local council environmental health department will not be able to help you directly, though they may be able to offer you advice. For direct help, you should contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau or local Law Centre.

Before contacting any of the above you may find it helpful to read one of the following booklets :

Citizens Advice Bureau. Getting Repairs Done while Renting

Shelter. Repairs in private lets Repairs in social housing

You may also find it helpful to look at our page on the Housing Health and Safety Rating System

http://www.cieh.org/policy/housing.html

neverdespairgirl

theartfullodger wrote: »

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..).

It's not that complicated, honest.

Liability in relation to the repairs not done by the LL seems to have been conceeded, what was at issue was quantum (ie - how much in damages) and setting off costs and other losses incurred by the Defendant LL.

The issues the Defendant raised in their counter-claim for damages were in relation to (1) the T's failure to tell them of repairs that needed doing, (2) his failure to agree to move to another flat owned by the LL while repairs were undertaken, and (3) his refusing to obey court orders and undertakings to move out while the repairs were done.

The tenant does, in that case, appear to have been a serious PITA!

theartfullodger

I am indebted to dopester & tbs624 for the following, shamelessly copied from the wonderfully entertaining "Tent Thread" (see..
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2673705
)


The Shelter "Rogue Landlord" campaign debated in parliament...
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2010-09-08a.99.0&s=speaker%3A24835

(tbs's editing...)

Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham, Labour)
The essential points that I want to make include the following. Most private landlords are responsible and honest in how they deal with their tenants. That is beyond dispute, but those who are not bring down the reputation of the whole sector.

The Government must accept that Shelter's investigation has uncovered significant problems with rogue landlords that require action. Many aspects of existing law are not properly enforced by local authorities. They often do not treat this as a matter of priority or do not have a properly resourced enforcement team available……….

MPs regularly deal with problems associated with unscrupulous landlords……..They include harassing tenants or throwing them out of their homes without notice………. adding exorbitant fees or charges to their account …

What does the law say? Harassment and illegal eviction are criminal offences. Local authorities can prosecute landlords who commit such crimes…”

We like what amounts to a bit of a slapdown for Mike Weatherley, as he sought to highlight a point from Suzy Butler’s “I’m a victim campaign” ( Mr Cruddas, as previously quoted by <sebb>)

Mike Weatherley (Hove, Conservative)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the legal process may be a little slow, not only for legal remedies for tenants, but for landlords when tenants are in arrears? Perhaps both problems should be examined.

Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham, Labour)
I do not dispute that there are occasionally problems on the other side, and I think we all agree on that. Such problems also need resolution, but they are completely and empirically outweighed by tenants' problems that confront us as MPs.

…..but maybe Mr Cruddas should also have a private word in Mike Weatherley’s ear ……….

Mr Weatherley's initial decision to back Suzy Butler, whose actions towards her tenant were not dissimilar to those of many a “rogue LL”, was a pretty poor one IMO but he then compounds that by trying (and thankfully failing) to switch the focus and “point score” in the midst of a debate about Shelter’s campaign against rogue LLs?

Cheers!

Artful

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

""The NLA is calling on local authorities to prosecute landlords who wilfully ignore laws aimed at protecting tenants. ......
David Salusbury, Chairman NLA, calling for further action by councils, said:

"..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.

Despite this "posturing" from the NLA I've yet to see any useful comment from them about the behaviour of one Suzy Butler, the amateur LL who seems to favour "trial by media"

It would have been a very good opportunity for them to have reminded their members the *correct* way to go about evicting a T who had fallen into rent arrears and the reality of what can happen when those who want to play at being a LL fail to adequately prepare and/or take good advice on the provisions of their tenancy agreements.

The only mention I have seen is of the local NLA members offering the "LL" some accommodation whilst she waited to get her property back and their logo used on her ill-advised facebook campaign page
(although I see that this has disappeared from the more recnt updates)

At least Tessa Shepperson and Nearly Legal addressed the issues, and the Guild of Res LLs commented, whilst AFIAA both the NLA and the RLA remained tight lipped.

theartfullodger

Agreed: I joined NLA earlier this year thinking they'd save me money as they cover E&W and Scotland, but what with the daft posturing (feel free to quote me) of their PR man, Steven Hilton, the lack of quality of some of their materials & the attitude you've just described I'm considering asking for my money back.

Cheers!

Artful

theartfullodger

Whilst recognizing that most landlords are responsible (am I sounding like that thing they say at the end of “Crimewatch”??), herewith Mondays' Rogue Landlord case from the archives...


Sampson v Floyd [1989] EGLR 49; CA


Physical eviction not necessary for breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment

The plaintiff was the lessee of a chalet and a restaurant on a complex including a caravan park and holiday homes in Devon. The landlord refused to pay for a meal at the restaurant, ‘abused’ the tenant and there was an ‘exchange of fists’. After finding his ‘frightened wife hiding under a caravan’, the tenant left the property and recovered his possessions under police escort. The tenant issued proceedings and was awarded £11,364, which included £10,000 which he had paid for the lease, conveyancing costs and £750 for mental distress to himself and his wife.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the landlord’s appeal. There was no reason to disagree with the county court judge’s conclusions. Physical eviction is not necessary to constitute breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment. The award of damages was upheld.


Whilst the damages may appear low the case was 21 years ago.


Cheers!


Artful

theartfullodger

Whilst recognizing that most landlords are responsible, herewith Tuesdays' Rogue Landlord case from the archives...


Arabhalvaei v Rezaeipoor 7 November 2007 at Central London County Court


Mr Rezaeipoor, a protected tenant was awarded £188,526.21(!) in damages against his landlord for disrepair and harassment.


Cheers!


Artful

Brb

theartfullodger wrote: »

Mr Rezaeipoor, a protected tenant was awarded £188,526.21(!) in damages against his landlord for disrepair and harassment.

Wow that had to hurt! going to have to google this one to see what happened.

lynzpower

http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/imageUpload/File/HousingJan08.pdf here is the document about that case

oooof that really had to hurt - what a figure!

District Judge Taylor awarded damages of
£188,526.21, calculated as follows:
Disrepair: (50 per cent of the rental value
over the period in question) £22,500;
Harassment: (at the rate of £6,000 per
annum) £46,500;
Loss of employment: £67,500;
Special damages: £2,601.68;
Additional special damages for heating,
cleaning and related damages: £2,325;
Aggravated damages: £5,000;
Exemplary damages: £5,000; and
Interest: £37,099.53.
For details of the issue of disrepair and the
awards relating to it, see December 2007

22k for disrepair alone should be a cautionary tale to any slumlord.