Government boosts court capacity as Renters’ Rights Act drives court demand

The County Court sits five days a week. Higher Courts seem to only sit four days a week.

The Legal Profession is an over populated profession unlike the Teaching Profession or Medical Profession.

Few wish to be County Court judges.

The official date for retirement is 75 years. It was previously 70 years but due to the shortage of judges it was extended to 75 years.

The shortage is such that some judges sit “In Retirement”.

In the County Court a Barrister is very likely to have a fee exceeding the judges salary for the day.

Judges are overworked and underpaid in my view.

Reply to the comment left by Fergus Wilson at 21/08/2026 – 10:02
Really? So it would seem that they need a union, like ASLEF who got train drivers £76K per annum for a four day week. Or the Communication Workers Union who are presently objecting about 3,000 dog attacks per year on postmen. I think the Council workers Union may be Unite but I don’t know how Unite feel about dog attacks on council workers, or how people who manage social housing feel about getting bitten.

Judge lambasts Citizens Advice over its ’emotive rant’ help for tenant facing eviction

December 12, 2018 December 11, 2018 |

Rosalind Renshaw of Property Industry Eye

Well known landlord Fergus Wilson did not harass a tenant into leaving her property, a county court judge has ruled.
Deputy District Judge Roffey was also highly critical of the local Citizens Advice Bureau, in Ashford, Kent, which had advised the tenant.

Judge Roffey said: “I must first of all say that Citizens Advice Bureau up and down the country provide an invaluable and worthwhile service to millions of people on little funding.

“They provide legal advice and assistance to those who cannot afford their own and I wholeheartedly commend them as one of the cornerstones of the judicial system in this country.

“Sadly however this case does not represent the finest hour of the CAB.”

The Judge said that someone at the CAB helped the tenant, Ella Payne, prepare a defence and counter-claim in the case where Fergus Wilson’s wife, Judith, was seeking a claim over cleaning and eradicating mould at the property, which she said had required redecorating.

The tenancy was ended by a court order for possession.

While the case was heard at the end of October, the transcript has only just been passed to EYE.

The Judge said that the way the CAB put together the case was not “dispassionate and objective” but was a result of the CAB’s previous dealings with the Wilsons.

A clue, said the judge, was in part of the defence and counter-claim, which said: “Further, the claimant, who owns numerous houses in Kent, treats many of her tenants and former tenants in a maliciously, oppressively and grossly reckless manner.”

The Judge said that “such an emotive rant” should have no place in pleadings in any circumstances, even if evidence suggested that the allegations were true: “To make matters worse, however, that paragraph together with the other allegations . . . were completely unjustified.”

Other parts of the counter-claim said that Fergus Wilson “unlawfully evicted the tenant from the premises”; and that he had “unlawfully and maliciously threatened and intimidated” the defendant who had been “so scared, frightened and intimidated by Mr Fergus Wilson’s unlawful threats that she vacated the premises and returned the key within the four days”.

The tenant claimed that she had received a letter from Fergus Wilson giving her four days within which to give possession of the property.

This, said the Judge, was the “malicious threat and intimidation” referred to in the counter-claim. However, there was no reliable evidence as to where the letter came from, and the Judge concluded that it probably was the court order for possession – “nothing more and nothing less”.

The Judge said that the Wilsons had behaved in a respectable and professional way towards the defendant.

The Judge said that Judith Wilson had proved her claim for damages, and said that after removing £750 – the bond paid by Ashford Borough Council – the amount would be £925.

The Judge dismissed the tenant’s counter-claim, including allegations that a toilet leaked into the living room below, saying there was no evidence: Fergus Wilson had visited the property, as had a plumber who had not found a leak. Wilson had suggested the tenant open windows to counter alleged problems of mould and damp. His one-line email had been terse, but nothing more.

The Judge also specifically threw out the former tenant’s claims of threats, intimidation and unlawful eviction.

I sat through two days of the trial and did have to say a word.

Of course, I never recovered a penny!

Reply to the comment left by Fergus Wilson at 21/08/2026 – 10:47
I see….it’s very interesting to hear from someone with direct experience of the courts.

I am a small portfolio landlord and have no experience of the courts. All that I know is that labour refused to publish the results of its court impact assessment of its Labour Renters Rights Bill and promised to fix the courts….the same way that they promised to grow the economy then immediately raised employers’ NI, dropped the level at which it had to be paid, and proposed giving all employees employment rights on day one. The same way that they promised to build 1.5 million new homes but of course will not do this. The same way that they promised to build more council houses, even though we all know they haven’t got the money because they are racking up unprecedented levels of public debt as a consequence of failing to grow the economy.

The question of intimidation is an interesting one. 3,000 postal workers a year are attacked by dogs. Council workers have to approach or enter properties to collect bins, investigate reports of infestations by rats etc. Utility company workers also get attacked on properties because they have to investigate problems such as gas leaks or perhaps enormously raised electricity bills.

If you really want to be intimidating and scare people off then you get a big dog (I’m not suggesting that you do this as a landlord, there are plenty of dogs out there owned by tenants). The country is very focused on knife crime, although a big dog is not only a more effective deterrent but also a more effective weapon than a knife. So if you want to hide both the fact that you have a cannabis factory in a rental property, but also that you are sub-letting to the county lines people selling both the cannabis and the other drugs you flog, then the best thing to do is to get a really big dog. As a tenant, the Labour Renters Rights Act allows you to request something you describe as a ‘pet’ so only obliges you to give a ‘description’ of your ‘pet’.

So your utility company worker wanting to investigate the enormous utility bill coming from your cannabis factory in the cellar and loft isn’t going to go onto the property. The police also aren’t going to go onto the property other than in overwhelming numbers, partly because it’s too risky and only the police dog-handlers are trained to do it, but also because they are far too busy chasing drug-dealers on eBikes. Clearly, the police aren’t going to be helping you with your landlord’s inspection, even if you did give 24-hours notice. By the way, if you want to protect your illegal eBike the best way to do that is to put it around the back of the property in the shed near where the very large, very loud dog is and plug it into the mains….because eBikes are so efficient the amount of electricity they take is a tiny fraction of what it takes you to grow your cannabis, and much cheaper than the petrol the police have to buy to chase you on your eBike, making them an eco-friendly solution that is even better than Ed Miliband’s proposals to make all rental properties Band C or above. If Ed Miliband’s proposals come to pass of course you will probably be able to get a grant for photovoltaics to grow your cannabis because officially at least you’ll be on a low income, possibly claiming benefits, and the housing benefits people aren’t going to want to check your entitlement to benefits with the enormous dog at the house; these public sector employees expect landlords to do that.

Oh….and with the Labour Renters Rights Act not only do you have the right to request “A” pet (from which you might infer just one animal) you have the right to request that ‘pet’ as many times a year as you wish to and the tribunals have to deal with all your requests. The Labour Renters Rights Act is a disaster: You can dress things up in polite words such as ‘not thought through’ but sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade and say what the spade is….the Labour Renters Rights Act is one of the most STUPID pieces of legislation that the United Kingdom has ever seen.

Rent tribunals aren’t equipped to deal with it, but we do have dangerous dogs legislation to protect such people as postal workers, council workers, utility company workers etc. and this legislation does not just extend to the likes of the XL Bully or American Pit Bull Terrier:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/contents

This legislation is published by the Crown Prosecution Service. Kier Starmer can reasonably be expected to have known about this legislation because Kier Starmer used to be the head of the Crown Prosecution Service and dogs are used as a weapon, just like guns and knives. Because Kier Starmer is a lawyer, Kier Starmer can also reasonably be expected to have understood what the impact of the Labour Renters Rights Act on the courts would be.

Mrs Judith Wilson Claimant
Ms Ella Payne Defendant
Before Deputy District Judge Roffey sitting at the County Court at Maidstone, The Law Courts, Barker Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME16 8EQ.
UPON the Court finding that the allegations made by the Defendant in her counterclaim against the Claimant and her husband here entirely Without Merit.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. There be judgment in favour of the Claimant in the sum of £3347.72, including interest calculated at 2 % from the lst July 2013 to date, payable by 12th November 2018
2. The Defendant’s counterclaim be dismissed
3. The defendant shall pat the Claimant’s costs summarily assessed at £6772.32 by 12th November, 2018.
Dated 29th October, 2018

Reply to the comment left by Fergus Wilson at 21/08/2026 – 12:20
The advice to tenants on gov.uk relating to the Labour Renters Rights Act advises tenants to get advice either from Citizens Advice, or from Shelter:

https://www.gov.uk/private-renting-evictions/harassment-and-illegal-evictions

This doesn’t appear to be very good advice but then this isn’t very good legislation.

In fact…the Labour Renters Rights Act is some of the most stupid legislation that the United Kingdom has ever seen.

There is a distinct shortage of lawyers wishing to be County Court Judges.
The barrister or solicitor attending earns more money than the judge.
It is an economic decision not to be a judge in the County Court.

Reply to the comment left by Fergus Wilson at 21/08/2026 – 15:03
Maybe some of them are intimidated by the prospect of having to deal with the consequences of appalling statute legislation that should never have seen the light of day, not just because of the effect on the courts. Your average ‘judges’ who know enough about the law are hardly going to relish dealing with this s**t show are they?

On the matter of intimidation that you raised earlier, there are about 3,000 ATTACKS on postal workers by dogs every year and the NHS deals with about 7,600 cases of hospital admissions due to ATTACKS by dogs every year. The thing to understand however is that this is the tip of the iceberg; a dog is a more effective weapon than a knife, and sometimes more effective than a gun. However, the principle purpose of having a large, aggressive dog is to INTIMIDATE. The problem of INTIMIDATION is greater than the attack problem.

But even though the NHS doesn’t have to deal with the greater problem of intimidation, the NHS does have to deal with the direct consequences of irresponsible dog ownership and the Labour Renters Rights Act encourages irresponsible dog ownership; the Labour Renters Rights Act is actually a severe threat to public health and Labour have left the consequences of dealing with that severe public-health threat to rent tribunals, who are not competent to deal with it.

The Labour Renters Rights Act is not just stupid: It is EXCEPTIONALLY stupid.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 21/08/2026 – 15:15
The only way to get more lawyers to be County Court judges is to pay them more than the Barrister or Solicitor before them earns.

Reply to the comment left by Fergus Wilson at 21/08/2026 – 15:45
This may well be true but even if they pay county court judges more than barristers they will still not be qualified to assess the risk presented by tenants with animals. And there is no easy way to fix this. It is impossible to assess the risk presented by an animal on the basis of a physical examination of the animal. Anybody who certified that an animal was low risk on the basis of an examination of that animal would be guilty of false-certification, fraud. There is already a problem with fraudulent documents being provided as part of applications for tenancies.

The government needs to clearly and unambiguously tell rent tribunals that landlords are free to raise rents, and/or require appropriate insurance in response to requests for pets or evidence of pets at properties. Because of the severe risks associated with antisocial behaviour caused by irresponsible pet ownership, as evidenced by the number of attacks on postmen and also the number of attacks that the NHS needs to deal with, keeping an animal that is not declared to the landlord needs to be grounds for repossession under the Labour Renters Rights Act.