We have all learned from Ben Reeve Lewis’s writings on this blog, how hard it is to get a conviction for harassment against a landlord.
Well hats off to Sheffield Council whose officers obtained a conviction against landlord Steven Loxley in May at Sheffield Magistrates Court.
His tenant, Ms Muscroft, had lost her job and as is the way of things, her housing benefit was taking a while to come through.
Mr Loxley was not pleased about this and responded by sending a text message to her every single day. In one of them he threatened to move in a lodger the next day.
The local authority tenancy relations office asked him to stop sending the texts but he took no notice.
Eventually Ms Muscroft moved her furniture out but, again ignoring Council advice, Loxley went in and changed the locks before Ms Muscroft had formally given up the tenancy. When she tried to get in three days later she found she was locked out.
Loxley pleaded guilty at the prosecution and was fined £250, a £15 victim surcharge and £425 legal costs.
This is not a huge amount of money of course and some landlords may think it worth the risk to get rid of a non paying tenant. However a conviction is not a good thing to have on your record, and this may well affect Loxley adversely in the future – for example if he were to need an HMO license.
We are not told whether Ms Muscroft actually paid her outstanding rent once the benefit came through, or why the payment was made late – was it general delays on the part of the benefit office or was it due to Ms Muscroft failing to provide all information needed?
However I suspect that if the benefit had been paid promptly, the whole scenario would never have happened.
Still from the point of view of us lawyers, it is helpful to know that daily texts demanding outstanding rent can constitute harassment.
A result of sorts but what a pathetic fine. The amount of time and resources that would have gone into that prosecution would have been phenomonal.
First, and after innnumerable phone calls, letters and interviews the TRO would have had to take a section 9 statement off of the tenant, then got the landlord in for an interview under cautiuon, then get summonses issued, serve summons, set court date (I’ll bet the offence happened at least a year before the trial.
Lanldord gets fined what amounts to what the lawful eviction would have cost him anyway.
Speaking for myself I wouldnt have bopthered and instead would have helped the tenant to claim civil redress on the basis of Breach of Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment. A far quicker process and would probably have resulted in a greater financial penalty and some money for the tenant.
Tessa do you know if Sheffield did him under Protection from Eviction Act or Administration of Justices Act?
I only know what is in the press report http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/landlord_fined_700_for_payment_harassment_1_3417126
Aha, just read the article. TRO was Dave Hickling who posts here occasionally. The article doesnt say if the landlord was done for the illegal eviction
I wrote somewhere on Landlord Law a couple of months back about how demands for rent could be a criminal offence under Section 40 Administration of Justices Act 1970 which states where a landlord “harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation”;
.
I havent done one of those for years
Well quite Ben, he gets away with a poxy fine like that and to be fair, why would he care about a criminal record as a full time dodgy landlord? He’s not the sort of person to apply for HMO licences anyhow and round here those regulations are sporadically enforced, if at all.
Unless civil claims are routinely pushed, or we get a magistrate / Judge who decides to make an example of someone and sentence them to prison, this will go on. Seriously. What sort of message is that minuscule fine sending to folks? That Rachmanism is naughty but basically forgivable?!
to put the boot on the other foot, so to speak, I wonder how many texts a landlord has to send before it does justify being called harassment?
Last year I had a joint tenancy break up, not in an amicable way – in fact the female partner was advised to move out by the police. The other partner decided to leave as he couldn’t afford the rent on his own and I released them from their 12 month tenancy. Having agreed a vacating date, his furniture was still there two weeks later and he was not answering his phone, so for a couple of days I did text him quite regularly asking his intentions. Was I wrong to do this?
Different ballgame LinniR Section 40 of the AJA refers to demands for payment. If you were asking his intentions re the abandoned goods you were acting within the requirments of the Torts (Interference with goods) Act and it is in his interests to reply as you would be able to dispose of the goods after a time.
How many texts? There isnt a set amount but you can bet the Sheffield landlord was over the top. It is extraordinarily difficult to get any prosecution of a rogue landlord at all, with far more serious allegations that that case would seem on the surface, so even with that minsicule fine the judge must have been impressed enough with the case.
Maybe Dave Hickling could give us more detail if he reads this
To answer the above, all the Court heard was ‘numerous’ and ‘very frequent text messages’. I don’t want to comment in more detail than the Court heard about either of the two recent cases but I think it’s worth bearing in mind, that in my experience, the set of initial allegations that a TRO deals with may be quite different from what is pleaded guilty to in court.
There are many reasons for considering negotiating a guilty plea. The the sort of allegations we deal with ie about people’s behaviour and what they have said, are often not ‘nailed on’ evidence-wise, a 3 day trial, whether civil or criminal are time consuming and expensive all round and are often harrowing for the complainant.
I have to say I’m disappointed in some of the negativity where council’s take prosecutions. There is so much more to taking criminal actions than the actual bare fine at the end of it. Defendants are likely to have paid hundreds sometimes thousands in their own legal costs.
Also, for me the point is very much in the process in that is invaluable for Council’s to be seen to be meeting harassment and illegal eviction with a clear and fair response. The bad landlords get to know that they will be brought to book for wrong doing, the good ones, falsely accused, can at least respect a fair process of investigation and the vast majority of good landlords who do things properly and never come to our attention, have the satisfaction of knowing that the guilty ones don’t get an easy ride.
In my experience, for the vast majority of potential perpetrators of H&IE, a criminal record does mean something, in fact, even being interviewed under caution is taken seriously to make someone think twice in future. As for the trouble and expense eg of taking statements, well if any complaint of H&IE is to be taken seriously, a full account has to be taken anyway and if it is to be dealt with fairly, why not seek the alleged perpetrator’s views under caution and record it properly. this is all the criminal law requires.
I don’t see criminal investigations and civil cases as alternatives to one another, much is likely to depend on whether there are local solicitors who will deal with a civil case. I think the important thing is that local authorities are serious about addressing H&IE, however local conditions dictate that that is best done.
Thank you so much Dave for taking the time to comment here. I agree that it is important that Councils are seen to do something, and that it sends an important message to the landlord community.
It is unfortunate that the penalties are seen as derisory which has a bit of a negative effect.
thanks, Ben
Thnks for clarifying that Dave.
I agree in principle with what you are saying Tessa too, about council’s being seen to be doing something, but as you also state, it is often down to local conditions and is resource led. On Friday my co TRO and I dealt with 3 illegal evictions and that is not unusual. I went to court for an injunction for re-entry with mine and with court time, then tracking the landlord down to serve it I was effectively out of action for 2 days, during which time my collegaue picked up another illegal eviction and a serious assault case.
We dont have any competent local solicitors and those that are, slightly more afield, are too overstretched to do the emergency re-entries we need.
For my part I would rather work at building supportive relationships with our local landlords. Our council is looking to formalise this but I do this in my own way and find that far more effective in dealing with matters than time and resource draining prosecutions.
My ideal is for a council to become the letting agents, if the government wont regulate them then this is the next best thing and I think that is the way forward for TRO. I always thought TRO a strange title ‘Tenancy Relations Officer’. Make us sound cuddly haha, but maybe the key is in the word relations.
Well done on the prosecution though Dave