[Ben Reeve Lewis is puzzled by the increasing sexual element in the PRS …...]
I don’t know if anyone has tossed a bucketload of Viagra in the South East London water supply since Christmas but for some reason over the past couple of weeks there has been a sexual element to the world of the PRS around my way..
As reported last week there is the growing problem of landlords offering rooms for free in return for sexual favours and last Friday night I raided a property with police and UKBA where a lady was visiting a house full of illegal immigrants to have sex in return for chicken and chips (we were informed)
On Thursday I paid a surprise visit with planning enforcement to an illegally converted property only to find entry thwarted by the tenant shouting through the door “F**k off we’re having sex”
In addition, last week I went with our planning enforcement bods to an unauthorised porn cinema in New Cross, ably covered in our local paper who sent an intrepid reporter inside to cover festivities……all in the interests of journalism you understand, although the article reads more like a ‘Carry On’ script than a piece of serious coverage.
What IS going on???
What irks is the statement that my lot were unaware of its existence when several of us have already been in there on numerous occasions………PLEASE don’t let me have to state the obvious…”Professionally”…… and stop tittering at the back.
Bloody journalists, trying to make it look as if they got the scoop.
Retaliatory eviction again
The hot debate over laws to end retaliatory eviction continue to be slogged out in parliament and housing press.
This week saw the green light for the expected amendments to the Deregulation Bill to usher in the proposals filibustered out of voting time by Chope and his mate a few months back
Nay saying arguments are all getting a bit predictable.
Tenants rights groups send up an exploding, celebratory rocket while landlord groups try to wee on the blue touch paper by insisting that while they support plans to end retaliatory eviction they feel it will not deter criminal landlords from evicting and will in fact create a rogue tenant’s charter.
Sorry peeps but the landlord argument is such a non starter it hardly bears discussion.
Why landlords are safe with EHOs
I’ve written about this before and what drives the suggested block on s21 proceedings is the council’s EHOs serving some form of works notice on the landlord.
In 25 years I have never met a reckless EHO and I work closely with them all day long.
Their focus is on regulations, not on helping a dodgy tenant block eviction.
Also, bear in mind human nature. If an EHO serves any form of notice this then starts a causal train of paperwork and general pain in the arse case work. Who in their right mind would do that for no reason?
Anyone who thinks that EHOs sit there waiting for daft, unsupported disrepair claims coming in so that can run about like Don Quixote serving pointless notices just to help a tenant out has obviously never worked with an EHO.
They leave the pointless Don Quixote stuff to me and my ilk………….we WOULD do that sort of thing!!! (Joke!…..before the comments start flooding in)
Offensive comments in Chester
Prize for the most stupid, politically correct news story this week goes to Chester’s local councillors complaining loudly about what they termed “Offensive letting agent sign boards”
What exactly did they proclaim? Were they hideously racist?, did they offend anyone’s religious sensibilities?
Well actually, they really stuck the boot into students by describing an area as ‘Studentville’ and starting up a facebook page containing such terrifying insults to humanity as:-
“10 random things to do before you graduate university, including to “steal a traffic cone” to “put on your head and/or use a loudspeaker while being wheeled around in a shopping trolley” and “give a presentation while drunk”..
All of which they were forced to take down after one councillor described the comments as “disrespectful and unnecessary”.
I’m going to write to Chester council to find out the name of that councillor and send them a gift as a reward.
A thick volume of Sudoku, as he obviously has too much time on his hands.
Upsetting students?……Oops, I’ve really done it now!
Outing bad letting agents
Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy has been at it again with her latest campaign to out bad letting agents.
Apparently she marched a crowd of 60 :Placard waving’ people into the offices of Central Estate Agents complaining that Central were the worst agents in town.
Terrified director of Central Neil Ewen said:
“The atmosphere was very unpleasant. If this had been 100 years ago, they’d have had pitchforks”.
Pitchforks????? What a bizarre image. How did he get to that?
- If this had been 100 years ago they would have all had blunderbusses.
- If this had been 100 years ago they would have put me in an Iron Maiden.
- If this had been 100 years ago I’d have been sentenced to penal; servitude.
Full marks for imagination there Neil.
Tips offs from the Tenancy Deposit Schemes
My colleagues in HMRC have been busy bees targeting landlords through information supplied by tenancy deposit schemes which they then cross reference against tax declared
Amanda Sims of Yardleystar Accountancy said:
“I have had several calls about these letters and HMRC have told me that they have thousands of names from tenant deposit protection schemes confirming who landlords are and the addresses of their rental properties”
Of course none of this will affect the kinds of landlords I have to deal who can’t even spell ‘Tax’, let alone, ‘Deposits’, or know what to do with them.
What made me smile this week
The news that Al Murray’s Pub Landlord is to stand against Nigel Farrage in Thanet with several hilarious vote winning policies that Farrage himself would proudly offer up without the irony
- Other parties offer you the moon on a stick: we’ll do better than that. A British moon on a British stick”
- National Service, but only for people who don’t want to do it
- Unemployment causes crime: I propose to lock up the unemployed. Common sense.
And of particular interest to Landlord Law Blog readers:
- Build some houses but without bringing down house prices. How hard can it be?
See ya next week.
Retaliatory evictions;
“Who in their right mind would do that for no reason?”
Exactly.
Anyone who thinks a landlord would evict a paying, non-ASB tenant for reporting a dangerous hazard that will have to be repaired anyway has never gone through the time consuming and costly eviction process.
Legislation based on zero factual evidence.
HB You really do live in a different world. I deal with these day in day out 52 weeks of the year and have done for 25 years. They are as depressing as they are routine.
We warn all complainants of the likelihood once we get on the phone to their landlord and ask if they still want us to go ahead.
When we do go ahead and contact the landlord about an issue it is very common for that landlord to illegally evict the tenant or assault them for complaining to the council.
Just last week i dealt with a case where a woman who had no water for three years asked us to intervene. The landlord responded by dragging her downstairs by her hair and kicking her 7 times. Retaliatory eviction for her would be a luxury.
This is the world of the TRO and the tenants in the worst properties. They exist, there are thousands of them and if the law that is being created to protect them creates problems for decent landlords such as yourself then i can live with that.
The logical solution, (obviously outside of complaining to the police and having the chap arrested / Calling big brother and a few mates to return the favour) is to make illegal eviction a mandatory custodial sentence. As well as the civil penalties.
Hello Ben,
The type of scum that do that aren’t going to be bothered with the niceties of a section 21.
This is all dancing on a pinhead stuff though as the legislation is now that watered down to be largely ineffectual- if it even happens.
True S21 isnt high on these people’s to-do lists but it does give us something to prosecute and have them arrested for when they try to evict without following due process.
I agree, the effectiveness of the possible legislation will only be as good as the attitude of the judges involved AND the way it is finally worded. Look at deposit protection legislation.
I still want it as a toolbox in my armoury though. I get a long way on empty threats :)
Ivan I like the cut of your jib :) Trouble is the criminal judiciary are absolutely appalling when it comes to sentencing for harassment and illegal eviction.
The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 already carries the prospect of a custodial sentence but on average its just fines of a few hundred pounds.
:) I agree, I think it’s outrageous. Aside from the lack of interest from the Police (who should, if not know the law, be able to access it very qucikly) who claim that matters like this are a civil case (shocking). They also seem alot more reluctant to bring additional charges (e.g. assault, theft, criminal damage) as these are then encompassed by the ‘harrassment’. I understand that the judicial system could get very bogged down if every instance of someone breaking the law went to court.
But there must be something more that can be done?
I guess it’s down to the lack of prison spaces & cost to keep someone in prison; that when i read my local paper, 25 magistrates court convictions last week, not a single one actually going to prison. Atleast 4 of these were assaults and 1 a non-molestation order breach. Where’s the deterent?
I was against proposed Landlord Licensing when it was suggested, suggesting that it was just a money spinner and decent landlords would be financially affected (both of which may still be true), but atleast there would be long term consequences to the rogues that blight this nation.
You must be chuckling there Ben – your blog post predicted the comments from a certain someone practically word-for-word. Great news on the HMRC stuff. Fair few landlords telling tenants that they don’t take deposits now – bet that number goes up.
On the HMRC front, I have had an email from a reader saying
“Well at least we now know the reason for the Tenancy Deposit Scheme being about tax evasion and b….. all to do with the safeguarding of tenant’s deposits.”
Personally though I don’t have a problem with landlords paying tax on their earnings like the rest of us …
RRRRAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHH Deposit protection was never about tax evasion it was about the fact that I read a couple of years before the legislation came in that only 14% of tenants were getting their deposits back when they left.
Obviously in some cases it was because it was deserved but in many it wasnt and it was significant enough a problem for government to feel pushed to change the law, the UK looked to the Australian model of the time to solve it
It is exactly the case with retaliatory eviction. If it wasnt a problem as some claim then government would hardly be bothering to draft a legislative change and lets not forget this isnt an extension of Teather’s bill, it has as it did on its previous passage through parliament, the full backing of the con-dems, hardly the tenants friends.
I do regular presentations to landlords groups and at landlords forums and I cant remember a time when at least one person hasnt grabbed me by the arm after speaking and asked conspiratorially if I know a way out of protecting deposits.
If deposit protection is all about tax collecting then why has it taken HMRC 8 years to figure it out?
Nonsense Ben, it was nothing like 14% (statistics aint your strong point). But I agree it was a very significant amount and it was right to legislate against it- unfortunately the legislation they came up with has been a shambles.
Retaliatory evictions are a completely different case, they are nothing like on the same scale and there is no evidence to support it.
It has cross party support because it would be a vote loser not to support it, a bit like voting against cuddly kittens. If it does come it will be toothless legislation, otherwise it would destroy the rental market. Already there has been an amendment preventing it being used if the tenant has ever been in arrears- The true reason behind nearly all ‘revenge’ evictions.
“Personally though I don’t have a problem with landlords paying tax on their earnings like the rest of us.”
Neither do I Tessa but I don’t think most of those not declaring are earning, I think they are making a loss. Which could be carried forward losing revenue. So it’s not worth HMRC going after every landlord, just those making a profit.
Exactly. Landlords doth protest so much; I cannot help but laugh at their persecution complexes. As one reader of this blog put it to me “stop getting your knickers in a twist”
HB I know it was specifically 14% for a fact because I sat on a panel providing input into the scheme’s creation in 2005 and those figures were on the table.
As for your assertion that there is no evidence to support a claim for a law on retaliatory eviction. Do you seriously think that just denying every single point I ever raise on this blog is a decent, cogent argument?
Sometimes I get the impression that you simply stick your fingers in your ears and hum to stop you hearing things you dont want to hear.
Laws arent brought in simply to piss landlords off. Can you accept that there may be a problem out there? Or are you deaf to that as well.
Again, fact based evidence. I and my TRO compatriots spend all day,every day, paid for by the tax payer to negotiate in disputes where the landlord is angry that the tenant has asked the council for assistance.
We do it through letters, we do it through phone calls, we do it on doorsteps, often going nose to nose with people who dont want to listen and we finally do it in court.
This ALL I’ve done since February 2nd 1990. Dont tell me it isnt a real problem
Just to say that I have deleted a post which I thought was being unnecessarily rude about someone on this thread, (and which would probably have encouraged more rudeness).
Please can people try to not to insult other people posting on the blog, however much they may disagree with their views.
I will generally let through something I do not agree with personally but I am not going to let through offensive slagging off and nasty accusations.
Please read the comments policy page http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/comments-policy/
https://www.housing.ie/Our-Publications/Private-Rented-Sector/PRTB_Dispute-Resolution-Mechanisms-in-relation-to.aspx
“The 2003-2004 Survey of English Housing provides the most consistent, reliable and large-scale picture of the private rented sector (DETR, 2005).This survey revealed that of those who had paid a deposit, 70 per cent had their
deposit returned in full, 19 per cent had their deposit returned in part and 11 per cent did not have their deposit returned at all.”
I thought it was a lot higher than that as per the CAB mini survey showing up to 40% of tenants having their deposits withheld.
Either way Ben, it is not the 86% you claimed.
I knew scumbag landlords pre deposit protection who used to see keeping tenants’ deposits as a perk, but they weren’t the majority. It hacked me off as it worked against me because they could undercut me by a month’s rent.
It was a significant enough number to legislate against it, and rightly so, despite its failings.
I accept there is a problem with retaliatory eviction but I don’t accept the wild guestimates that have been bandied about to steamroller this through. Unless the true extent of the problem is known it is foolish to legislate blindly as there are unintended consequences that will effect a lot of people. The legislation that is now on the table is bizarrely tortuous and will not solve the problem.
It is not fact based evidence you are putting forward, it is anecdotal evidence. That still has some validity but you are only looking at a microcosm of the very worst of tenancies.
I don’t disagree with every point you blog about, I actually agree with 90% of what you say but there is little point in posting just to agree with you.
Anyway, I’m clearly winding you up which is not my intention so I’ll back off for a while. Sorry for being a cantankerous old git.
RR,
Whatever.
Its all in how the act is drafted and I have not had time to look at it properly yet.
However we have all seen how accepted interpretations of legislation has been turned on its head in recent cases and the legislation found to have a different effect from that intended.
I dislike retaliatory eviction and think it is a foul practice – however we do have to be careful not to affect the balance.
I expect people in 1918 when private renting was at about 80% of all households could not envisage a time when it would ever be different. But by the late 1980’s it was down to about 8%. Changing the law DOES affect things.
We need to be careful what we wish for.