Some of you who read this blog may remember that last week I was asked to comment on BBC (local) News, about the situation of landlord, Suzy Butler, who came back from working for the homeless in Peru, only to find that her tenant was refusing to move out, rendering her homeless herself.
There is an online newspaper report of the case here, which has now accumulated some interesting comments! I wrote about it briefly here, but as that post was mainly about the experience of doing a BBC interview, perhaps I should write a bit more about the case itself.
I am also prompted to do this by a TRO who has written to me expressing her outrage at the fact that this tenant, who appears to have a perfectly valid assured shorthold tenancy, was being called a squatter and doorstepped by GMTV asking her when she was going to move out. “Is this not” she asked me “harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act?”
An interesting question. Here is an extract from the act:
1(2): If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises of his occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or attempts to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises
It doesn’t specify here that it must be the landlord doing the harassment. Does going round with a TV crew equate to attempting to deprive the tenant of occupation of the premises?
If it does, what is the position of the various TV companies? They were after all the ones who broadcast the item and made millions of people think that this tenant was an illegal squatter.
Further down, the Act is more specific, although here it is aimed more specifically at the landlord:
(3A) … the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—
(a) he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or
(b) he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence,
and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.
Well, Ms Butler may not have cut off the electricity supply, but she certainly seems to have interfered with the peace and comfort of her tenants occupation of the property. Unless the tenant enjoyed having a TV crew invade her living room, while her landlord berated her on camera.
Lawyers familiar with this area of the law know that you can be guilty of the offence even if you don’t believe that your actions will make the tenant want to leave. However Ms Butler did want her tenant to leave – that was after all presumably the whole point of the exercise! And it appears to have worked, as it is being reported on the internet that the tenant has indeed now moved out.
And just how fair is that, bearing in mind that other landlords who do not have TV crews helping them, often have to wait months before they can recover their property, after following the proper procedure through the courts? We all know the courts take far too long to resolve these cases, but the courts are severely underfunded, and in the current economic climate this isn’t going to change any time soon.
The situation of a tenant failing to move out at the end of a fixed term is not unusual and does not turn the tenant into a squatter. Section 5 of the Housing Act 1988 prolongs an assured shorthold tenancy indefinitely after the end of the fixed term on a ‘periodic’ basis. You end this by serving a section 21 notice on your tenant and then going to court for a possession order.
Many tenants who fall on hard times financially will stay on in a property, even if they are unable to pay the rent, as if they move out they will lose their right to be re-housed by the Local Authority. It is harsh on the landlord, but this is one of the risks you take.
If you are thinking of renting out your property, take note – most tenants are fine, but sometimes there are problems. New landlords should do research before they let property so they are aware of these things.
As for Ms Butler’s erstwhile tenant, no doubt she is speaking to her lawyers about her legal rights and remedies.
(Photo by Brett)
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
August 17, 2010 at 10:25 AMI think a TRO would have a hard time on that one. To prove harassment you would have to show that the TV crews were acting under the landlord’s instructions. They would immediately come back with an argument on their right to report.
If the argument was that the TV crew’s action were independent of the landlord and a case for harassment was to be mounted then they would be described under the Protection from Eviction Act as “Any other person”, for which you would have to prove the “Intent to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation”
I am torn over this case. On the one hand I think the landlord should have been more aware of the law around letting property before she handed over the keys and on the other hand I have some sympathy because landlord/tenant law is so ridiculously complicated.
I understand the history of landlord – tenant law and why things are as they are but it is long time for a reform. Whatever happened to that scoping paper that was hanging aorund for the last few years?
Tessa Shepperson says
August 17, 2010 at 11:46 AMHi Ben, thanks, as always, for your comments. I do have sympathy for the landlord, but also for the tenant who has been pilloried in the press as an illegal squatter. These situations are always unfortunate.
I think scoping paper you mention might be from the Law Commission. They produced an excellent report and draft bill http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/renting_homes.htm, but it has been kicked into the long grass and it seems unlikley now that it will be made law.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
August 17, 2010 at 4:27 PMYeah I saw that but I lost track of it and wondered what happened. That figures.
Actually I recant what I said earlier about feeling sorry for the landlord. Its late in the day and I want to go home and I have had to explain all day to landlords on the phone why they cant just do what they want – so my sympathy has gone haha.
One guy just said to me, incredulously “You cant tell me that there are laws that tell a landlord what he can and cant do with his own house” – some people just need the book throwing at them….a very large legal tome!!!!!!
J says
August 17, 2010 at 5:21 PMAll 6 volumes of the Housing Encyclopedia would suffice 🙂
Anonymous TRO says
August 17, 2010 at 8:25 PMI know exactly how you feel Ben! I’ve heard it all too – ‘You, a council officer, are telling ME I can’t throw out a tenant?’ and the old classic, ‘It’s my house I can do what I want!’
Ely says
August 17, 2010 at 9:05 PMThere are many tenants who are disturbed on how this case was presented. We’ve not got forums of Suzy Butler supporters saying things like: “harassment of tenants is wrong, but if the tenant is late with rent they become squatters, and it’s not wrong to harass squatters.”
Together with other awful, ignorant posts I won’t repeat here. Basically coming down to how landlords should be able to do whatever they like, ignore the law, and break it to their advantage.
I can see why good landlords might cease to follow housing laws if they encounter a problem situation with a tenant, or the tenant does something a landlord doesn’t like… such as prevent Suzy entering tenant’s home when she likes to collect belongings she has stored there, including grand-daddy’s possessions.
Especially when the media is happy to sit back and label tenants as squatters, and when a landlord can get the support of the national media, to pressurise the tenant out of their homes.
Ely says
August 17, 2010 at 9:15 PMTessa; good article btw.
Did you hear Suzy Butler on Radio 5 on 12th August? Is this what you want?
The media labelling legal tenants as squatters and being very sympathetic to landlords who have not bothered to pay for adequate legal advice in advance or renting their property(s) out, or not doing sufficient research?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCFhpITGilk
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
August 18, 2010 at 11:50 AMI remember watching a local TV news piece in the west Country where an elderly woman who was in a rest home for a couple of week’s respite care, returned home and found squatters in the house.
The news crews relished in the story of this poor old woman kicked out of her home and made the case, through the reporter outside the house, that nothing could be done, which is complete tosh. Although undeniably upsetting for the woman she could have had the police arrest them and remove them from the property and send them on their way, but that wouldnt have made a good story.
The Suzy Butler case is another example of landlords handing over keys to a property and not realising what is required of them by law from that point. Professional landlords aside the vast majority of small landlords who inherited a property, bought through buy to let, or just let out their property while they live with a partner are absolutely clueless. The eternal problem is that it is commonly thought that letting a property is a casual affair and all based in mutual undrrstandings between 2 parties and yet the laws governing letting are as complex as any intellectual copywrite or financial legislation.
I could understand this when I started off in housing back in 1482 but 2 minutes Googling throws up numerous websites, including Tessa’s, where everything a landlord needs to know is there, and yet still most landlords I meet havent got the slightest clue of even the basics
kjetilniki says
August 18, 2010 at 12:57 PMIt seems to me that s27 HA88 for extended damages to the tenant might well apply
(2) This section also applies if,…a landlord (in this section referred to as “the landlord in default”) or any person acting on behalf of the landlord in default—
….
(b) knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier of any premises—
(i) to give up his occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or
(ii) to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or any part thereof,
does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household,….
and, as a result, the residential occupier gives up his occupation of the premises as a residence.
If I instigate the press I can be held reponsible for the forseeable consequences of instigating them
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
August 18, 2010 at 3:02 PMThats a stretch. Cant rememember last time I heard of S28 damages at all and usually just for full on illegal eviction rather than harassing to evict. I’ve certainly never managed to get one. When they are awarded they tend to be quite high though, in the back of my mind is an old case from the 1990s where a Blackpool landlord got whacked £90,000+ I recall.
Maybe tenant could sue for breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment. Imagine that in the Dail Mail hahaha
Amanda says
August 20, 2010 at 10:48 PMThere would, I think, be a strong argument under the 1997 Act for civil harrassment, and arguments about disclosure of data which should have been protected.
Amanda
Sharon says
August 21, 2010 at 12:28 PMI have been following this story with a great deal of interest.
I probably know more than many landlords about tenancy law thanks to sites such as this one. Therefore there is surely no excuse for any landlord not to do some basic homework when they take the decision to make money from property (main home or otherwise).
Kind Regards
Miss Sharon Crossland AIRPM
Leasehold Life
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
August 23, 2010 at 2:17 PMAh Sharon…….the eternal cry of tenancy relations officers and housing advisers countrywide.
I think there is a culture in the UK of people thinking that letting out a property is an entirely casual affair and with no laws governing the process. The idea being “Well if it doesnt work out for me they can just leave”. How would landlords feel if the bank with whom they have their mortgages thought the same way?
I always point out to landlords who make this complaint to me (which accounts for about 90% of them) that the laws that are stopping a landlord throwing someone out when they want to is exactly the same law stopping their lender doing the same to them when they cant pay the mortgage.
I sometimes wonder if the potting compost of this idea is the phrase An Englishman’s home is his castle”? (I’m obviously not a man who minds mixing his metaphors)
Anyone got any experience of landlords laws and attitudes abroad?
Tessa Shepperson says
August 23, 2010 at 2:23 PMI must say that I was very surprsied at the number of people who genuinely thought that the tenant in this case was a squatter.