Free housing for rogue tenants – it’s okay landlords will pay!

Free housing for rogue tenants – it’s okay landlords will pay!

9:01 AM, 30th November 2015, About 6 years ago 40

Text Size

Landlords continue to be attacked by all sides in Parliament as various laws go through their stages in Parliament. This week Teresa Pearce, Labour, tried to get it made even more difficult for landlords to regain possession of our properties in cases of ‘abandonment.’ This is an excerpt from the comments made, followed by a reply from Dr Rosalind Beck, landlord at Property118:carry

Extract from the comments by Teresa Pearce, Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing)

‘These are probing amendments. Let me put it on record that I think the amendments we just agreed are actually quite good. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I still believe, however, that this whole part of the Bill is open to abuse. I hope that it will be reviewed at some point and that if such abuse occurs, regulations will be brought in. Clearly, I am not as optimistic as the Minister about the behaviour of some landlords, particularly the ones in my constituency who I have seen threaten and abuse tenants, and access properties at any time of the day or night. That sort of person will not look at the safeguards in this part of the Bill, but will see it as an opportunity to act in an even more irresponsible way than they already do.

Amendment 108 would extend the minimum period that would need to pass before a landlord is able to recover abandoned premises. Amendment 109 would extend the time period between the two letters—I believe it may now be three—that are needed to evict a tenant suspected of abandoning a premises. I am truly concerned about abuse of the provisions in this part of the Bill. Landlords could use the proposals to evict tenants simply by writing them letters. They could also use the measures to evict someone as an act of revenge. If a tenant moves into a property that is not fit to live in and asks for repairs, the landlord might think, “This tenant isn’t going to be easy, so I’ll use this process to try to get rid of them.”

We appreciate the need for landlords to be able to recover truly abandoned premises and the fact that tenancy agreements are a two-way street. I appreciate the Minister’s argument that if someone does not pay their rent, they have clearly already broken their tenancy agreement. I have seen instances of that: for example, someone in my area who had a property of her own got married and moved in with her husband. Rather than sell her property, she decided to let it out. For an entire year, the tenant paid no rent at all, but she still had to pay the mortgage on that property. I therefore completely understand that there are situations of that sort that need addressing. The measures in the Bill may make the situation easier for landlords in that sort of position, but my fear is they may also make it easier for rogue landlords.

I am pleased that the Minister has added a provision to the Bill that requires a third wave of letters for the process, but it is still important to safeguard against abuse. Extending the minimum amount of time that has to pass before a landlord is able to recover an abandoned premises will mean that those with legitimate reasons for absence will be able to respond. That will help to safeguard against potential abuse.

One concern about the proposals that has been raised with me is the possible pressure they will put on local housing authorities, which may have a duty to house tenants following eviction, even if only in emergency accommodation. Under the current system, when faced with someone who is about to be evicted, those local housing authorities have time to plan their resources, so that they know that if a resident is going to be evicted they will be able to house them adequately in emergency housing. Under the proposals in the Bill, residents could be evicted with haste, putting further pressure on already pressed local housing authorities. The amendments would insert a bit more time into the process for recovering abandoned premises, which would, I hope, ease the pressure on local housing authorities.

Amendment 109 would extend the time period between the letters. Currently it is two weeks and no more than four weeks; we propose extending it to four weeks and no more than eight. That would be advantageous for a number of reasons. It would safeguard against error. A landlord could use the measures to kick out a legitimate tenant who is away on business, in hospital or on holiday; extending the time period between the letters would mean that there was less chance of that happening. It would also safeguard against abuse. It would allow tenants more time to lodge a query with the landlord or seek housing advice. As there is no court involvement in the process, it would give the tenant more time to assess their options.

It is clear that the proposals in the Bill will have the power to affect all tenants in the private rental sector. All landlords will have these powers, open to abuse as they are, even though abandonment accounts for an estimated 1,750 occasions of tenancies ending a year. We hope that the rules will be got right, so that there are safeguards against abuse, and so that we allow landlords to recover abandoned premises where they need to, but do not allow them to evict tenants at their ease. That is the reason behind these probing amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance that those who could be abused will be protected by the law.
(Hansard source: Citation: Housing and Planning Bill Deb, 26 November 2015, c326)

My response:

‘Dear Teresa.

As a portfolio landlord I read with dismay your comments this week regarding ‘abandonment,’ or what we know in the business as ‘doing a runner.’ I have had the misfortune to have had many such cases, and the usual pattern is that suddenly the tenant stops paying and does not answer any calls or texts, so we do not know what is going on. In the meantime we obviously have to continue paying the mortgage and we start to worry that we may have a ‘rogue tenant.’

We usually leave it a few weeks, writing then to ask what is happening and again getting no response. Finally, we give notice that we intend to visit the tenant and when we go there we see that they have indeed disappeared. They always take all of their valuables and often leave large old items like sofas and beds and usually lots of rubbish and full cupboards as well as a filthy and sometimes, damaged house. That is the usual pattern of the ‘runners.’

It seems that you are in favour of us then leaving such a house empty for 12 weeks, when we will invariably already be down in terms of rent and also face having to pay to have all the rubbish and furniture removed (this costs hundreds of pounds, in case you don’t know) and to fix anything they have broken – rogue tenants who don’t adhere to their tenancy agreements in terms of paying rent and giving notice don’t tend to look after other people’s property either.

You believe that only after waiting 12 weeks should we be allowed to re-enter our property to clear away all the mess, renovate the house once more and then be able to advertise it and wait for a suitable tenant. Naturally, that completely negates the purpose of tenants giving us a month’s notice so that we can find replacements without experiencing voids. Through no fault of our own, in such cases we face approximately 6 months with no rent coming in; a massive hit which it will take years to recoup as we often have a modest margin between rents and mortgage payments. That is how I experience this.

You seem to think that there is a very different thing going on, however; that in fact abandonment cases are about decent tenants going on holiday, having always paid their rent on time and having looked after the house and then these awful landlords come in, change the locks and re-let the houses while the tenants are on holiday. Why on earth would a landlord do this, risking breaking the law and losing decent tenants? You are very ill-informed, I’m afraid. As a landlord with 20 years experience I hope you can acknowledge I may know more about this than you? You may also acknowledge that if you have heard the odd story about a bad landlord, you should not base national policy on this.

The natural conclusion of the law you are supporting and which you wish to be amended to make it more extreme, is that landlords lose out even more. You say this is helpful to Local Authorities as they have more time – I don’t follow that logic. This is usually argued more in relation to tenants who are being evicted for non-payment of rent and who are in fact refusing to leave, the kind of rogue tenants whom your colleague, Siobhain McDonagh then advises to stay put as long as possible until the bailiffs are commissioned so that the private landlords can continue to be forced to provide them with free housing, thus saving the LAs money. As you say, this is ‘helpful’ to LAs (while being devastating financially to decent, honest landlords who have done nothing wrong).

As you seem intent on promoting even more extreme anti-landlord measures than the Government (and they have effectively declared war on us) why not suggest that we leave the houses empty with no rent coming in for 6 months before we can regain possession? Why the rather arbitrary 12 weeks?

In fact, it is completely over the top to wait 12 weeks to establish if someone has left or not. You can usually see it in an instant. You don’t have to be Columbo. One can, for example, ask neighbours to confirm if they have seen the person’s other possessions being taken away, the tenant may have even told them that they have moved out, the tenant may then not have been seen for weeks. Why can’t this be construed as sufficient evidence? Why is everything to be balanced in the rogue tenants’ favour, ‘just in case’ (with complete disregard to the interests of the landlord who more often than not took out a mortgage to buy the house, renovated it, maintained it, poured their own money and time and effort into it and has considerable ongoing costs attached to it? Why does none of this matter)?

I would add, that if the tenant is still paying the rent, it is a very different matter and would clearly indicate that the tenant has not given up the tenancy; but when they have stopped paying and are nowhere to be seen and cannot be contacted, this is a very different thing. It is the ongoing financial loss from the rent arrears when one has to keep the house available to a non-paying, absent tenant who has clearly and definitively ‘done a runner’ that is so crushing to a landlord’s business.

No doubt you also support Clause 24 of the Finance Bill, whereby we are to pay tax on mortgage interest as though it were ‘profit’ instead of the main cost of the business which has already left our bank account and gone to the mortgage lender. It maybe hasn’t occurred to you that it is rather a feat to have to pay mortgage interest and (bizarrely) tax on mortgage interest, when no rent is coming in for months on end (but I suspect you don’t care).

Maybe, like your colleague, Siobhain McDonagh, you would like the Government to go further on this too and make landlords pay even higher levels of tax? Maybe you think that this makes you a compassionate person. I think the idea is that if you attack landlords en masse (by saying you are targeting ‘rogue’ ones, but introducing blanket measures which attack all of the vast majority of decent landlords) that you are somehow helping tenants? This couldn’t be further from the truth.

If you indeed are compassionate, instead of suggesting landlords bear even more of the brunt and costs of dealing with rogue tenants who disappear owing money (landlords lose billions every year at the hands of rogue tenants), but whom you want us to keep our houses empty for, in case they return, perhaps you would like to donate a large amount of your income to keep some properties empty for these people? Or maybe you would like to make rooms available in your property for free in case they are needed? AS YOU EXPECT US TO DO.

It is always very easy to be generous with other people’s money (in case you don’t understand how it works, when no rent comes in to cover the mortgage, the landlord has to delve into any savings they have to subsidise this housing or may have to take out a loan to cover the loss from what we consider to be a criminal act of theft against us. We are not Housing Association or council staff, who suffer no personal financial loss when they have rogue tenants).

What is currently occurring is the biggest attack on the private rental sector in UK history. It is going to be catastrophically destructive. I have been trying to get your party to see this for what it is instead of behaving like some adjunct to the Conservative party.

Rather than repeat what I have written to your colleagues on this matter, I will paste the links here for you to read. This link contains correspondence with Rob Marris:

This is my letter to Siobhain McDonagh, which she has still not answered:

You may also be interested in my letter to Campbell Robb here:

Suffice to say that the Labour Party is behaving in a shameful way, completely disregarding the fact that by attacking landlords you are also attacking the tenants of this country, particularly the low-paid and those on benefits who will be ‘phased out’ of their housing as Clause 24 is phased in.

You should be campaigning against these astonishing policies which will have terrible consequences for tenants as rents rise and they are evicted by landlords unable to pay tax on ‘fictitious income,’ instead of wasting your time supporting rogue tenants (not even doing that really – as leaving houses empty for longer periods benefits no-one as these houses could be providing essential housing to others far sooner).

I hope you will take some of this on board and refrain in the future from supporting the current misguided and disgraceful attempt to devastate the private rental sector. Or do you want this wanton destruction of a vibrant and well-run housing tenure, providing accommodation for millions of people to be part of your legacy?

Yours sincerely.

Dr Rosalind Beck


by Gary Dully

15:13 PM, 4th December 2015, About 6 years ago

Dear Ms Pearce,

I have been asked to write you this email, By Dr Rosalind Beck, as next Thursday (10th December, 2015 @ 11am),
I will be forced by law to ask a County Court Judge for permission to get back my "Abandoned" Property.

I am dreading the ordeal, because it is NEVER pleasant, its expensive and at the end, I will stagger out "Punch Drunk"

It is now my 11th Court Case for Abandonment in the last 5 years and its the 3rd, so far this year, where one was due to a tenant committing Attempted Murder. (Yes he has rights in the eyes of the Law, also).

In next weeks case, it was made un-rentable by its current tenant on the 19th August of this year and contained beer bottles full of urine, rotting chicken carcass in its wardrobes and vomit on all the bedding, menstruation blood stains on the mattress and a smashed up bed frame in the rear patio area.

I have also received written threats for trying to deal with the tenants guarantor and I have had to wait 12 weeks to even get to this stage.

Should I be successful next week, (and its a big gamble), I will have to face a No-Win, No-Fee Solicitor who sits in the court waiting area, every Thursday (Repossession Day, as its known in this particular court), looking for cases, where they can set up tenants to ask for damages for unlawful eviction and will look to mislead the courts with tales of disrepair, faulty equipment, claims that 'Prescribed' information wasn't given and an A4 sized checklist that they will use to try and kill the case via any slight breach of the Civil Procedure Rules.

To say its an ordeal is an understatement.
There are no ROGUE Landlords in that County Court waiting room, because if there were I would happily kick them up the arse, but there are lots of "Rogue" tenants - some of which used to be mine.

Rogue landlords do NOT use the legal system - they are in it to exploit tenants.
Rogue Tenants ironically do use the Legal System - they are lawfully entitled to do so!

Try telling a judge that, you would think that I had strangled one of their children at some hearings as they act as "Guard Dogs" for any absent tenant. (Its about time we had cameras allowed, that would be an eye opener)

However, your previous comments, although well intentioned, would achieve the opposite of what the new proposed rules set out to achieve.

I will point out a different way to get the results you wish to achieve a little later.

I have also been following your open letters to Dr Rosalind Beck, in regards to your comments previously made in the Houses of Parliament in regards to your concerns about the misuse of the proposed 8 weeks process concerning property abandonment.

I have to say that your response to Dr Beck, was quite measured and thoughtful, but it also was not much use to me or similar Landlords in this situation and in fact your idea will simply force more good Landlords into bankruptcy.

Please accept that all "Good" landlords hate the guts of the bad ones.

No Landlord is perfect and some Letting Agents are simply beyond a joke.
Similar things have been said about MP's.

Landlords, such as myself sometimes do falter, but not intentionally and with no sense of trying to be malicious to our tenants.

In regards to "Abandonment", we desperately require the slight relief offered by the proposed bill to be allowed to be unfettered by 'misguided' good intentions of Local Political representatives such as yourself.

The reason is, that you have not understood how easy it would be for you, the Labour Party and the Government to deal with this matter or concerns, instead the "Good Landlords" are facing more and more legislation and since July thanks to George Osborne's both catastrophic and discriminatory "Clause 24", massive rent increases are just around the corner.

Why is This?
As you are already aware, but doubtful of the claims made, probable financial 'oblivion' awaits all individual 'Professional' Landlords, as soon as interest rates start to increase, at which point all the good Tenants that you know and represent will be facing massive rent increases as the now 'favoured' Corporates enter the Rental market, whilst Professional Individual Landlords are to be taxed with a long-term finance tax and non-existent profits that have gone to a bank.

Its a "Perfect Storm" for a disaster and all parties appear to want to ignore the Laws of Accounting and now tax genuine business costs... i.e.; loan interest payments, dragging 'Individual' Landlords with losses or small profits kicking and screaming into a Higher Tax Bracket, even when they make a loss, whilst corporates and cash rich wont pay a penny more.

How did Labour find its way supporting that, together with SHELTER & CRISIS? - can nobody do simple arithmetic?

Its the sort of stunt Robert Mugabe or Vladimir Putin would do. (are we now a 'Banana Republic'?)

Over recent years, a minority of Corporate and Individual Private Landlords have been pilloried by the news media and MPs for, lets face it, "Gross Misconduct" and "Unprofessional Behaviour", but the problem is that so have all Good Private Landlords.

This is despite the usual "We know all Landlords are not bad, but we only intend to deal with the Rogue Landlords" rhetoric, that we face every Saturday morning in the weekend papers or news bulletins as the latest Housing Minister or MP tries to 'outbid' the last Housing Ministers justification for having no homes left to sell or rent at a reasonable cost.

Many Landlords now favour licensing, but it is mega expensive for landlords as it is piecemeal, has no economies of scale and at the moment, the councils introducing it are simply trying to raise additional revenue .
Hardly any that have it established are not prosecuting enough of the "Rogues" to justify the schemes.

However, I digress, I wanted to highlight my concerns regarding "Abandonment"

The main problem with "Abandonment" is in the 98% of cases that tend to get to Court, is that the tenant has left personal belongings or "Trashed" the property.
I have yet to have any of my "Abandoned" properties back without substantial damage.

Legally the tenant can bequeath that tenancy in their will until the tenancy has "Legally Ended". I even take deceased tenants to Court, thanks to the current restrictive nature of current legislation.

If they re-rent without a Court Order, Written Notice or Explicit Surrender they are instantly guilty of "Unlawful Eviction" due to this line in the Prevention From Eviction Act 1977.
> It shall not be lawful for the owner to enforce against the occupier, otherwise than by proceedings in the court, his right to recover possession of the premises.

The property is usually damaged and I can guarantee that you wouldn't want to live in the majority that are "Abandoned".
They are at best smelly, have a mixture of vermin, excrement, blood, drugs, vandalism, uncollected or un-recyclable rubbish and are a blight on the neighbourhood.

So may I Indicate the current times scales that we face, on a good case with little or no delays and I speak from experience.

1. Tenant moves in 1st of January and pays rent for 1 month and suddenly stops.
2. Landlord wonders why their rent has gone missing - Waits 1 month (February)
3. Landlord issues mandatory warning letters under CPR Rules 2 months (April)
4. Landlord issues a section 8 Notice. (2 week minimum wait)
5. Landlord seeks a court hearing (4 weeks minimum wait under PCOL CPR rules) (June)
6. Landlord gets a Court Hearing (tenant doesn't even have to attend and gets a free solicitor).
7. Landlords Case is proven and Landlord gets a Court Order.
8. Judge gives absent tenant a minimum of 2 weeks to get out possibly 4+ (July / August)
9. Landlord has to repair the property and get it cleaned - 1 to 2 months (September maybe October)
10. Next tenant may have to serve a months notice. – (November)
11. If the tenant is on a "Periodic" Tenancy - Councils can now charge Landlords Council Tax - from when the property was abandoned. (Source: )
12. The Landlord has spent court fees, lost 11 months rent and the tenant gets away “Scott Free”.

The original tenancy only had a "Fixed Term" of 6 months.

God forbid a Bailiff is required, because then all bets are off, with a time scale. (Possibly Another 5 Months).

Application For a Warrant (2 Weeks Minimum )
Waiting For County Court Bailiff Appointment (1 to 5 months + Christmas Amnesty)

Now whilst all that is going on, where do you think that the tenant has gone? - the Seychelles, Torquay, Prison perhaps? - well usually I find that they are in another property belonging to another unsuspecting Landlord or Family Relative or Friend and its after running up large rent arrears and broken promises to clear them.

Its not the property that was ‘Abandoned’, it was the poor Landlord by the Justice system.

The new proposals shortened the length down to 8 weeks, but now its being fiddled with by some marauding ill-informed MP’s who quite frankly appear to have 'lost the plot' as far the housing market is concerned.

They only have to look at the current legislation available.

In 1977, (38 years ago), the then government brought into force the Prevention From Eviction Act 1977.
Part One Paragraph One, item Two says….
“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”.

Now my legal Boffin's years ago told me of how this law works in its "Guilty until Proven Innocent" technique.

The tenant does NOT have to prove anything, when things go wrong.
The law says
> ....attempts to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe,

A Landlord has to PROVE, in front of a Judge, Magistrate or Jury they were being reasonable and had a reasonable cause.
The proposed New Legislation gave the landlord that proof.

You want to slow that proof down -

Its isn't fair to do so - its the lifesaver Landlords facing financial meltdown urgently need.

If you were "Mugged" every month by the same thug, you would want some relief wouldn't you?

A simple Pay Point receipt placed on a utility meter or phone record of a call made from the property by a tenant, could be sufficient to prove the property wasn't "Abandoned".

Until now there has never been an opportunity to define "Abandonment" - Abandonment notices, currently are the equivalent of a "Snow flake in an oven" as far as the courts are concerned.

If the tenant was on holiday, in hospital or wherever, they will have invalidated the Landlords Insurance for non-occupation just for starters.
Insurance companies do NOT pay out for malicious damage on standard Landlord Policies caused by persons legally entitled to live there., (I learned that one a long time ago)

The penalty for breaching that commandment is 6 months in prison and a fine in the £20,000+ range.

We don't need anything more than that – its plain and simple, it already exists and it isn't open for debate.

It is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE and should be dealt with by the Police or Local Council.

Let me be blunt.
This is where you, as a Local MP, are letting your constituent, under threat, down.

You should be in a position, where you can arrange a one-off meeting with your local Housing Officer, Your Local Police Inspector and yourself and simply tell the Police Inspector that in future you expect them to arrest any Landlord carrying out such an eviction or threat of eviction, place them in handcuffs and then allow that Landlord an opportunity to prove to a jury that they are innocent.

A simple announcement from the Housing or Justice Minister is all that is required.

When the Police Inspector tells you that he or she hasn't got the resources, its a 'Civil matter' tell them about the damages the Courts will award against the Chief of Police for failing to Act and they will have to explain to the Chief Constable why they are now paying £20,000+ in potential damages, per case.

Greater Manchester-case
Luton - case

It shouldn't take long for that sort of publicity to shake up both the "Rogues" and the "Professionals"
In the eyes of the law they are guilty at the point of arrest

So no need to fiddle with the proposed legislation – it is the least that should be allowed – Landlords cannot afford this current system any more.

I’m on about my 11th Abandonment case in the last 5 years.

Last year I wrote off £18,000 in "Bad Debt", this year it may be as high as £12,000. - Based on 3 tenants.
How many boilers and repairs could that have paid for? (£30,000 in 2 years!)

In 1977 – you didn't have the 'benefit' system that we have now, nor the No-Win-No-Fee solicitors lining up to attack the unprepared, you could probably mess the limited number of Private Landlords about and the council had houses available and it didn't matter as the rents were about £50 per month even in London.

A house cost £13,500 and my mothers rent was £12.79 a fortnight.

Times, House Prices and Losses have moved on and we need 'faster' remedies.

Housing is a limited resource, just like oxygen any attempt at getting a rogue tenant out of a property to replace them with a more responsible tenant should be welcomed with open arms.

I now video or photograph on my phone all my "Abandoned" properties and those images are stored on Drop-box.
They are available to view upon request.
See if you can spot any "Abandoned" in the ones below.
( Images of properties in Crewe, Birkenhead, Liverpool)

The Future.
Thousands of Landlords are about to need licensing, especially in Wales and larger cities, the rogues will be sorted out by the councils if they have the resources as the loss of your licence should be enough of a deterrent.

(Although not yet fully functional, I think Wales is leading the way as far as licensing goes, it has economies of scale and one place to go to to deal with matters).

To Address Your Concerns
You, should ask the Government to simply tell the Chief Constables and CPS to prosecute and publicise those Landlords that breach the existing legislation as the landlord is technically guilty just by accusation and has to prove their innocence.

I warn all my tenants at the start of a tenancy that it starts with a signature and it will end with a signature or Court Case.

Yet they still place themselves in a position of a repossession judgement on their credit files.

I lose thousands of pounds a year because of unwarranted delays and if they ever show up at court, (they never have for Abandonment) - they just sit there as there solicitor goes through the motions of trying to discredit you.

We don't just throw tenants out - we get a Court Order, but amateur landlords don't know the rules.

What Happens if Nothing Changes?
Thousand of Landlords are potentially at risk from "No-Win-No-Fee Solicitors deciding to nationally advertise for such cases and as the law stands - they will all want to "Settle" out of Court to avoid Specific and General Damages.

As soon as 'PPI' claims and "Trips and Falls" fizzle away - I view Landlords and Doctors as easy pickings.

But even with my example - it takes about 6-11 months to start to regain an income and we are also going to pay tax as the property lies empty, under the new "Clause 24" tax changes and Council tax change.

"Abandonment" is a nightmare and is probably twice as expensive as a normal repossession for arrears, where its quite clear that the tenant hasn't "Abandoned" the property and it usually isn't trashed.

We know the police rarely bring prosecutions under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, well that's not our fault is it?, but they should and could do so for offences under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
> Warrant of arrest
> In serious and urgent cases the local authority can apply for a warrant for the
> arrest of the perpetrator.
> The police carry out the arrest and the offender is
> brought before the magistrates. The offender will normally ask for bail (as the
> alternative is to be remanded in custody) and the local authority can ask for 'bail
> conditions' that the court can impose.

How tough does the legislation have to be?

We as landlords need the proposed break from the current legislative nightmare and you and The Police need a bit of education.

Its no longer funny, is it?

Just imagine, you get the cooperation of your Local Police Inspector - wouldn't that make life easier for your constituents?

The Law hasn't been repealed, use it!

Kind Regards

Mr Gary Dully

by James Fraser

15:30 PM, 4th December 2015, About 6 years ago

Blinking 'eck, Gary. It's a good job you didn't get to the last line of writing that, only to lose your power supply!

Well said though, top stuff.

by Dr Rosalind Beck

17:03 PM, 4th December 2015, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Dully" at "04/12/2015 - 15:13":

Well done Gary. You had me in stitches now and again - especially the bit about MPs not being perfect...
Let us know if you get a reply. You should do. And even if you don't, or if it's the same old drivel, I believe some of these arguments go in and can make a difference. The more we get on to the Labour ones, the less they'll feel free to talk sh*te.
And good luck again with the court case. I feel for you. It's an effing ordeal.

by Michael Barnes

15:17 PM, 7th December 2015, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Dully" at "04/12/2015 - 15:13":

Whilst your arguments are reasonable, I found it difficult to pick out the important bits from the 'discussion', and only realy succeeded because I read the rest of this thread first.
I learned years ago that for busy people you need to give them the headlines and present them with the supporting argument.

A good structue in my experience is one of the following (effectively the same, but for different circumstances):
1. Tell them what you are going to tell them.
2. Tell them
3. Tell them what you have told them

1. Executive Summary
2. Arguments
3. Conclusions

The content is essentially the same in each section 1, 2 and 3 whichever of the above 'models' you choose.
It is also importand to have headings for the 3 sections.
The (busy) reader can then
- see where you are going from the summary
- better understand your arguments, because you have said whare they are leading

In the case of your letter (with suggested headings)
1. Summary
This is essentially
a) A speedier abandonment process is needed.
b) there is existing criminal law to address unlawful eviction.
2. Why I believe this
This is essentially your letter above.
3. What I want you to do
This is essentially (if I have understood your letter correctly, but needs more-politic wording and expansion))
a) Kick ass to get existing law enforced.
b) Don't put costly regulation on good landlords when existing laws would suffice if enforced.

by Dr Rosalind Beck

15:28 PM, 7th December 2015, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "07/12/2015 - 15:17":

Great, Michael. Go for it!
The more emails she gets, the better.

by Gary Dully

20:04 PM, 9th December 2015, About 6 years ago

Yes Michael,

I'm sure when I'm in court in the morning, the judge will very obliging.

I got an automated response, saying she wasn't available to respond, but will get to it ASAP.

Now that was concise!

I have also written to BBC you and yours on Monday also concerning Clause 24 and SDLT.

Let's see how that goes as well.

by Dr Rosalind Beck

21:07 PM, 9th December 2015, About 6 years ago

Best of luck for tomorrow, Gary.

by Gary Dully

11:58 AM, 11th December 2015, About 6 years ago

I got breath tested yesterday by the Police as I was going to court, they must have known I was under stress!

I got possession of my property back with 2 weeks given for the tenant to move out.

I explained they moved out in August and she gave me immediate possession.


Then in the afternoon, I was informed that another tenant has done a runner in North Wales and went to view the damage.

Property savaged to death and soiled underpants hanging from the lamp fittings.

So here we go again!

What was it that misinformed MP was saying to the committee?
Did she mention underpants?

(Was that concise enough for you Michael?)

by Dr Rosalind Beck

13:25 PM, 11th December 2015, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Dully" at "11/12/2015 - 11:58":

Christ Gary. I'm pleased you got a good result in court - as you should - bloody hell, we have to be grateful just for getting a little bit of justice, when we are still down thousands because of these criminals, who get off scot-free.
Now and then, I've heard a comment about a tenant in a situation like this - 'they got what they deserved' etc., because they have 'lost their home,' as though they have somehow ended up in a bad situation, instead of often getting to live somewhere rent-free for 6 months.
As for the North Wales house I don't like the sound of those underpants - God knows how they got up into the light fittings. I don't think I want to know. Good luck with this next one.

by Chris Byways

13:37 PM, 11th December 2015, About 6 years ago

I heard an apocryphal tale a while back. LL heard tenant had left, visited and clearly Abandonment.

He went back the next day, with camera and witness/friend. The remaining junk was piled up neatly outside. A note inside an envelope, with the key, was left on the top read:-

"Dear landlord, sorry I missed you. Gone to Liverpool to move in with me mates. A bloke will be here soon to collect the last of this stuff.

No one ever saw him again - or knew who wrote the note. Pity more don't do the decent thing!

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?