I am very grateful to a loyal Landlord Law Blog reader for referring me to this story here in ‘This is Hull and East Riding’.
We all know that the police (on the whole) are pretty useless when it comes to knowledge and understanding of tenants rights.
However Sergeant and landlord Christopher Hine took this to a whole new level, when he actually turned up with the boys to physically evict his tenant and her seven year old son from his rented property in Mere View, Hornsea, without going through the tedious formality of getting an order for possession first.
Appearing at Beverley Magistrates Court:
Roger Evans, chairman of the bench, told him: “You knew Ms Baxter intended to remain in residence, but you attended mob handed intending to evict her.
“Although there was evidence she was a bad tenant, you of all people should know you can’t take the law into your own hands.
“We accept there may have been some provocation, but it is unacceptable to recover property by illegal eviction.”
Apparently Hine, ‘a man of totally good character’ with ‘no previous convictions’ deeply regrets his actions now, but from reading the paper, it sounds pretty horrific, and wholly inexcusable, however bad his tenant (Ms Baxter ) had been.
It would be nice to think that this is a single isolated incident and is not symptomatic of a general attitude of the police towards tenants, but ….
This story has completely confused me. My first response was laughter, then outrage that Sgt Hine who had received a suspended prison sentence was still in the job. How can a serving police officer be convicted and sentenced to prison and yet still not at the very least be suspended?
But then my thoughts turned to the question of what would make a copper, who would have said thousands of times to people that they couldnt take the law into their own hands, do exactly that? He certainly isnt ignorant of the law, so was it phenomonal arrogance, in thinking that it didnt apply to him, or was it, as his solicitor suggested down to the fact that he was desperate and at the end of his tether?
I should be expected to condemn the guy and I do condemn his actions but I want to understand it too. In my job I meet many landlrods driven to despair by tenants who bring them to the immanent loss of their homes by the actions of their tenants.
I think what drives this is a combination of amatuer landlords who are only ever 1 missing rent month away from repossession, without the finanacial buffer available to a portfolio landlord to weather blips in their income and lack of knowledge about the legalities and procedures involved in dealing with these kinds of problems. Many hear scare stories from friends and get confused when they look at the court forms and in a reckless attempt to hang onto their investment they risk all.
What I dont like about the Hine affair is the fact that he went with 3 other people. I can accept a scared amateur landlord changing a lock out of frustration but what is different about Sergeant Hine is his clear intent to frighten and intimidate the tenant. that is unforgiveable.
When coppers do these things I think there should be heavier penalties than when civilians act the same way. The book gets thrown at some hapless smack head for nicking a car raido but when officers who are meant to uphold the law act no better they get treated lightly
Yes, I agree. There was no excuse.
I think one of the problems is that people think of their properties as ‘an investment’ ie something to make them money, whereas what they actually are, is someone’s home.
There IS an argument for saying that all rented property should only be managed by properly trained and accredited landlords or agents.
I know it won’t happen, and it woud be very unpopular with a lot of people, but it would be the best way of cutting out most of the abuse (you will never get rid of it all …)
I have been working in housing since 1982 as an 18 year old in direct access night shelters and since 1990 in landlord tenants disputes. I only started blogging and commenting in the last year and a half but thorugh it I am coming to look at things with a different perspective.
I really am coming to the conclusion that so many well known problems in the PRS come simply through perception. As you say Tessa, the different views about investment v. home, my clean v. your clean, my acceptable behaviour v. your acceptable behaviour, your low rent v. my high rent.
The realm that you and I operate in, the legal world, seems to often have little relevance I sometimes think, even though it is unshakeable.
Sgt Hine’s feelings of being taken for a ride by his tenant probably had more relevance to him than the Law of Property Act 1925, the Housing Act 1988, Street v. Mountford 1986, Antoniadies v. Villiers and Bridger and on and on.
The PRS is a schizoid (sorry about the spelling there) sector where a lanldord’s simple intent to make money from property rubs up against the tenant’s simple desire for a home, and the legal aspect, the glue that binds the 2 together, that is our province Tessa, is rarely perceived by either party to be of any use to them.
Every day for 21 years I have to have the same conversations where the angry landlord complains to me that the law is all on the tenant’s side and the angry tenant claims the same thing.
There is a triangle going on with landlrod and tenants at 2 of the points and legal stuff at the third. The question is how do you pull it all together?
I’m not saying this is the overall answer but I think at it’s root is the ignorance by both landlords and tenants that they are thesleves bound in another triangle the minute the pass over the keys.
there is a personal relationship that affects all they do, there is a contractual business relationship that binds them and also a legal relationship that governs all they do It is incredibly complex but usually landlords and tenants simply think of it as a personal relatiohsip.
Portfolio landlords simply think of it as a business relationship, which satisfies many of the requirements of the legal part and keeps most of them out of my sphere of operations.
The danger for both landlords and tenants is in thinking that renting a property is only a personal pecadillo
The trouble with viewing it as a business still leaves a massive headache for the landlord. If as a business owner somebody walked into my shop and took a bag of crisps without paying it’s considered theft no matter how you look at it and in my opinion non payment of rent is exactly the same thing.
I know exactly where you are coming from and have a lot of sympathy with that view.
However, technically not paying rent is not theft, as in the criminal law sense. Theft is something along the lines of (from memory, some of the words may not be exact):
1. Dishonestly
2. Taking
3. Property
4. Belonging to another
5. With the intention to permenantly deprive
If all the elements are not there its not theft.
Rent owed to a landlord does not really come into this definition – or if you work out some way that it does, I am pretty sure the Police will not be interested! Its a ‘civil matter’.
Landlords need to be aware of all these things when they take on being a landlord – if you don’t like it the answer is not to be a landlord!
BTW, if anyone ought to know the definition of theft it is Sergeant Hines – the police generally learn all these definitions off by heart.
Yes. Missing rent is not theft. You might as well say that not paying a gas bill is theft, or reneging on a credit card is theft. The relationship between landlord and tenant is based on a business contract of service provider and consumer.
To hold that rent arrears are theft is a common complaint I hear all week and it displays an alarming ignorance of landlord tenant law
Tenancy agreements – even those with awards for plain English – are still quite large and complex documents for the average person to read. I can say with confidence that many problems we come up against are as a direct result of one side not having read and understood their tenancy agreement.
There would be far fewer problems if I could sit down with both parties to explain all the clauses in their agreement, but this will never happen.
I agree that plain English tenancy agreements are an enormous help. I convered ours to plain English a few years ago and they are one of the big reasons why people stay with Landlord Law.
Landlords have even said that their tenants trust them more as a landlord becuase they give them a tenancy agreement which they can read and understand.
If the tenancy agreement uses confusing words and is printed in small print and is hard to read, it is unlikley that tenants will do anything other than shove it in a drawer and forget about it.
My ‘favourite’ clause is the one that says ‘if the tenant is 14 days late with the rent, the landlord may re-enter….’ I’ve heard that one quoted to me a few times! I think OFT have deemed such a clause unfair if it doesn’t make reference to the tenant’s statutory rights.
Yes, that is the forfeiture clause which, as you say, will in invalid if you do not tell them about their statutory rights.
However it IS important that this clause is not removed (or something equivalent is provided) as otherwise you can’t evict the tenant eg under the rent arrears ground, during the fixed term.
It may also be important if the tenancy reverts to a common law type.
But yes, it can be misleading.
Tessa, are you sure that you need that to get possession during the fixed term for rent arrears? I thought Grounds 8, 10, and 11 were in statute and as such implied in every tenancy agreement?
Most annoying clause I’ve seen is “That the Tenant paying the rent and complying with all terms of this agreement has the right to quiet enjoyment.” Which I’ve encountered one landlord try to interpret as being “You don’t get quiet enjoyment if you’re in arrears. Now bog off or I’ll insert this tyre iron into your spleen.”
@JS I have not known of a case which has been thrown out through lack of the clause but I am pretty sure it is needed. I have seen it mentioned in quite a few legal tomes.
Yes ‘quiet enjoyment’ is a good one. As (I think) Lord Hoffman said of a tenant in a case “it wasn’t quiet and she wasn’t enjoying it”.
Anyone reading who wants to know more, I discuss it here http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/06/14/the-six-most-important-elements-of-a-tenancy-or-lease/
@Jamie, When tenants sign up for a social letting they have to be walked through the contract and the general house rules. my ex is a housing offcier for a housing association and each sign up takes her an hour to explain things. I am also working with a mate on prducing sign up DVDs for new tenants to get around this time consuming and probably very tedious process.
Also it has to be said a tenancy agreement weighed down with arcane legal terms would make anyone just throw it into a drawer and forget about it.
@Everyone I meet so many landlords who read the forfeiture clause mistakenly and the way it is generally worded makes me sympathetic to their plight. It is very misleading. Most agreements also state “Subject to any statutory restrictions on their right to do so”, which is obviously the Protection from Eviction Act but many agreements still dont add this caveat.