Friday and the end of August. Let’s see what news items we have today.
Legal challenge to Local Authority new policy
There is an interesting story coming out of Hull today from Property Industry Eye.
It seems that the Local Authority is now moving directly to serving improvement notices on landlords when they discover an issue without notifying them informally first and allowing them time to get the work done on a voluntary basis.
The only exception is for members of the council’s own accreditation scheme.
The Council say that this is to protect tenants, as under the anti-retaliatory eviction rules brought in bt the Deregulation Act 2015, landlords cannot serve a valid section 21 notice within 6 months of receipt of an improvement notice.
Landlords, however, are outraged at this:
- They consider it wrong that only members of the Council’s own scheme are excepted and not members of other accreditation schemes
- They point out that some mortgage companies may respond to this by increasing interest rates or even calling loans in which would result in tenants losing their homes
- They say it is wrong that landlords who are providing decent homes are being treated in the same way as criminals
The Humber Landlords Association are challenging the policy by Judicial Review and this is being supported both by the RLA and the NLA.
Chris Norris, director of policy and practice at the NLA said:
The informal stage allows landlords to remedy problems swiftly, without recourse to law, undue disruption to tenants, or making any payments to the local authority.
Eliminating this stage, and moving directly to sanctions, demonstrates that the council is more interested in financial gain than positive outcomes. It conflicts with national guidance, creates additional animosity between landlords and tenants, and risks the prosecution of landlords who may not even be aware of issues with their properties.
It will be interesting to see whether the challenge succeeds.
Reasons for leaving London
A while ago the Guardian asked people to tell them why they left London as many people seem to be moving out in their 30’s (I did myself).
This article looks at several of those stories and shows how people are finding life much easier outside the capital. Most have been able to buy a house – something they could never have done in London, and have a better family life.
Their North of England editor has also written an interesting piece, again saying how many people, once they reach their 30’s choose to move away from London so they can have a better life:
The average Londoner quitting the capital pays £424,610 for their new property, which … buys a large detached house in a good Birmingham neighbourhood – or a two-bed flat above a shop in east London.
She ends by saying
Moving back north I swapped career progression for a nice view and the ability to park outside my own house. I’ve never regretted it.
Unregulated Eviction Companies
There has been a case recently reported on Nearly Legal and by David Smith on the Anthony Gold blog on the extent to which unregulated companies can help landlords evict their tenants.
In this case, Mr and Mrs Gill had made use of an unregulated eviction company who had completed their eviction court forms and Mr and Mrs Gill had attended and just signed the paperwork.
The case is Kassam v Gill & Gill reported here. The company they used is called “Remove a Tenant” (RaT), a trading name of Fentham Group Limited.
As you may or may not be aware, under the Legal Services Act 2007 the conduct of litigation is a reserved activity which can only be done by firms who are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority – who will be properly trained and carry comprehensive insurance.
The value of this is shown by the fact that the notice served by Remove a Tenant was defective.
In this case, the appeal was allowed in part, possession order set aside and the claim was sent back to proceed under grounds 10 and 11, plus there was a disrepair and deposit protection counterclaim to be raised.
However, all unregulated eviction companies need to read this judgment very carefully, as do all letting agents who ‘assist’ their landlords in bringing eviction claims. If they go too far in acting like solicitors without the proper regulation, they could be prosecuted.
Snippets
- Property Tribes piece claims that Shelters’ No DSS campaign is to hide the fact that Social Housing Landlords now have no DSS policies
- The company which used to manage the Wilson’s properties has gone out of business
Newsround will be back next week.
As someone planning to move out of London myself I have been reading these exodus stories with interest. One I read pointed out that the influx and outflux is always going on anyway and in many cases people come from outside London and simply move back to their home area when they have kids.
From my work perspective the higher London rents are attracting more criminals and creating more overcrowded slums and I’m getting tired of looking at the misery and greed. I want a tree to look at and to earn my living simply telling other people how to do what I do rather than doing it myself.
I’ll need a replacement band though. Anyone in the Nottingham are looking for a not-great but improving lead guitarist for blues, funk, soul, call me. Has own amp, will travel.
It’s not clear what the exact circumstances referred to are, but surely if an HHSRS inspection finds that there is a Category 1 Hazard at any property, the Housing Act 2004 does not allow a Council to notify landlords informally first and allow time to get the work done on a voluntary basis?
Section 5 makes clear that if a category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises, the Council MUST take the appropriate enforcement action in relation to the hazard., and sets out that the only appropriate enforcement actions are:
a) serving an improvement notice under section 11;
b) making a prohibition order under section 20;
c) serving a hazard awareness notice under section 28;
d) taking emergency remedial action under section 40;
e) making an emergency prohibition order under section 43;
f) making a demolition order under subsection (1) or (2) of section 265 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68);
g) declaring the area in which the premises concerned are situated to be a clearance area by virtue of section 289(2) of that Act.
To me, it seems as if a Council which takes informal action is acting outside of what the law allows it to do, and is open to challenge from tenants etc.
It would be interesting if this challenge led to more councils being reminded of their duties and meant that formal enforcement action happened more often!
As a Landlord who is dealing with a situation at the moment, I feel I can comment on this. The Council did aim to tell me first, but sent their letter to the wrong address (not the address on the AST but the office address previous (3 years ago)). So in effect I did not get told, I was not present when they did their inspection. The Tenants were on a Section 21, because they kept giving notice but not going. They had been told two years ago that I wanted them to move out when they could as I wanted to renovate the house to get it to the standard that is acceptable to me.
Instead by the time I found out there was an issue I could not meet the dates set, also the Tenants were still living there. So I am in the middle either I get a fine because to work is not complete or I am in trouble for putting a family on the street as they have nowhere to go.
Also the Council put on their list eighteen items of works only two could be considered as Hazards, the rest is nice but does not constitute a problem, or if they do then their houses are all unfit.