Fergus Wilson’s response to “Hero or Villain”

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 01/08/2018 - 14:22
The council by the looks of it.
And why not? Exactly why do the council stipulate a lot of stupid stuff?
Why do Govt insist on paying UC tenant loads of money when he already in arrears & paying Landlord could prevent eviction?
Cause bigwigs at top have degrees, but no degree in common sense.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 01/08/2018 - 14:37
But that list appears to be written by the Ashford landlords…

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 01/08/2018 - 15:01
Well yeah, I'm assuming they saying What the council rules are.....

Can Fergus provide reference to the Ashford requirements?
I have searched their web site and can find nothing.

From Fergus:

This is still the level of fine applied by the Courts. A maximum fine of £525. Level 2 on the Standard Scale of the Magistrates Court.

Compensation in a Civil Claim cannot exceed the Level 2 fine which is the maximum fine not the minimum fine for Level 2.

The compensation cannot exceed 50% of a month’s rent. On a Daily Basis £5 per day. Hence no hot water for four days values the claim at £20!

Either the fine or compensation is payable.

Hot water can be provided by either Gas or Electricity. If there is a cylinder capable of producing hot water via an immersion heater that meets the requirement.

Runcorn landlady in hot water for boiler offence at house on Limekiln Row
Jul 6 2011 by Daniel Mckenzie, Runcorn and Widnes Weekly News
A LANDLADY who left her tenants without hot water for four months has been fined more than £700 after being prosecuted by Halton Borough Council.
Teresa Kirk, 44, of Pochard Rise, Runcorn, found herself in trouble after investigations by the council’s environmental health officers found she was in breach of an abatement notice served under Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 on a property she owned in Limekiln Row.
Despite failing to attend her hearing at Runcorn Magistrates Court on Monday, June 20, Kirk was handed a £525 fine, together with the mandatory £15 victim surcharge, and was ordered to pay £180 towards the council’s costs.
In April this year the council received a complaint from Lizzie Norton, one of three tenants at a home on Limekiln Row, Runcorn.
Miss Norton said there was no hot water accessible at the property and that they had been without hot water since December.
Miss Norton stated that the issue had been reported to the landlord, and after contacting her, an environmental health officer visited the property to meet all three tenants and Kirk.
On April 19, a statutory notice requiring Kirk to carry out remedial work to restore a hot water supply at the dwelling was hand delivered to her at her Runcorn home.
The notice gave her a week to comply with the requirement.
But by May 9, more than three weeks after the original notice, no work had been done to repair the boiler and the tenants still had no hot water at the property, so Kirk was charged for her failure to comply.

From Fergus:

In response to Michael Barnes request for further details:-
Ashford Borough Council has flagged it approach to no hot water and young children.
The magistrate said we did not act quickly enough on an Appeal against issue on the basis the tenants had hot water available all the time via an immersion heater.
The matter was listed for Prosecution but following the production of a Witness Statement evidencing that there was hot water via the immersion heater the Council withdrew the Prosecution!
It must be understood that magistrates are not legally qualified but well intended people! Unfortunately they do not always understand the issue! The issue was did the house have hot water not was the boiler broken down!
If the house had HW via an immersion heater then there is no issue about acting quickly enough!
What I would add is that all my houses in Ashford Borough have GCH and hence the water is heated by gas. However, where there is a cylinder they have Hot Water available via an immersion. This is an important point. In 2005 I purchased two new build in Sellindge Ashford just outside the Ashford boundary. Both had no gas and immersion heaters to heat the hot water! Hot water, does not necessarily have to be heated by gas!

Fergus and Judith Wilson lose court appeal against Ashford Borough Council
LIVE news
News alertsSign me up for news alerts
By Aidan Barlow
abarlow@thekmgroup.co.uk
Read all comments |

Published: 00:00, 20 December 2016
A property mogul has been ordered to cough up thousands of pounds in compensation and court costs after leaving a pregnant mother and her young child without hot water and heating.
Fergus Wilson was served with an Environment Protection Notice by Ashford Borough Council in February last year after the tenants felt unable to resolve the problem.
The council’s private sector housing team served the notice after the family reported being in “desperation” with Mr Wilson, who hadn’t carried out the repairs despite there being a toddler and an expectant mother.
The council instead stepped in to carry out the repair works at the address in Dove Close in the Park Farm area of Ashford.
Mr Wilson’s wife Judith and daughter Tanya appealed against the notice, and the case was heard before Margate Magistrates’ Court on Monday, December 12.
Mrs Wilson told the court that they believed Ashford Borough Council had taken over the works to repair the heating and hot water.
The council argued that the Wilson’s were fully aware of the lack of hot water and heating, but repair work was unduly delayed, leaving the family without hot water and heating for over a month.
In court, the Wilson’s were ordered to pay the council’s legal fees of £3,135.49 and ordered to pay their former tenants £1,200 in compensation.
The council’s cabinet member for housing Cllr Paul Clokie said: “In cases such as this where a young family were without hot running water and the matter was not resolved, it was right that the council stepped in and took this matter further.
“It is a last resort to take landlords to court, mainly for the sake of resolving the needs of tenants and for keeping the goodwill between the council and the landlords.
“Sadly, no one wins from this situation, but at least the principle has been upheld and we are pleased that the court agreed with us, and that costs and compensation were awarded. I hope by publicising this case it will encourage other landlords to respond swiftly.”
Mr and Mrs Wilson have been contacted for comment.

Reply to the comment left by Neil Patterson at 02/08/2018 - 08:12
So, it appears that there is no policy statement from Ashford on this, only action taken under appropriate legislation.

Fergus Wilson raises Rents.

Following the interest rate rise I have increased rents in all our properties by £50 per month (fifty pounds). It is merely passing onto the tenant the additional mortgage charge.

This increase starts immediately.

Reply to the comment left by Neil Patterson at 02/08/2018 - 13:03
He cannot do that. He has to serve a Section 13 notice first, and even that will not be applicable in some circumstances, e.g. where the tenancy is less than a year old or where another rent increase has occurred within the last 12 months.

Also, the rent increase cannot commence until one month after the next rent due date.

Reply to the comment left by Neil Patterson at 02/08/2018 - 13:03
£50 per month?
So his average mortgage is £240,000.
Run of the mill 2/3 beds in Ashford can be bought for that.
Is he in negative equity?