Profile incomplete
10:47 AM, 25th July 2018, About 6 years ago 71
Text Size
Fergus Wilson, a Kent portfolio landlord has made the headlines recently for the wrong reasons. Mr Wilson has stated that he will start evicting tenants with children under 5. Horrible headlines indeed. Exactly the type of landlord that should not inhabit the PRS, or maybe not?
Mr Wilson has now explained that his Local Council has demanded, that where properties are rented to tenants whose children are under 5yrs old, boilers must be fixed within 24 hours. Excellent in theory, but what if a plumber is not available ? What if a plumber lets a landlord down? What if a part for a boiler is not available and must be ordered? What if a boiler fails and a new unit must be installed?
In these scenarios, a landlord may not be able to repair within 24 hours and thus he would be in breach of the onerous conditions foisted upon him by the Council zealots. The landlord then becomes a criminal, as per these horrific local authorities.
Mr Wilson, in order to avoid becoming a criminal, must regretfully evict his tenants, who by all accounts have been excellent tenants. The landlord loses rent, the tenant loses their home. What sheer stupidity, but who can blame Mr Wilson? I certainly would not, and lets call a spade a spade. This disgraceful episode is down to the council.
Moving on, the Government, as we know, has introduced min bedroom sizes. Meanwhile, there is the new phenomenon, especially in London, where working adults on the ‘minimum wage’ cannot afford housing. Surely it would be better to allow these smaller rooms to be let? Instead we have these potential tenants sleeping in shelters, if they are lucky, or on the streets if they are unlucky.
The zealots, however, feel it is preferable to take these badly needed rooms out of the market. It seems they think it is safer to sleep outside in the elements. The stupidity is mind blowing. Day by day the PRS is under attack.
Councils everywhere are on the bandwagon, sucking cash from landlords with their sham schemes, under the guise of improving the lot of tenants. Even the landlords ability to evict under Section 21 of the Housing Act is under threat!
Wake up landlords and smell the coffee!
If in doubt, issue your Section 21 notices now, and rid yourselves of high risk problems before your tenants acquire indefinite leave to remain in your property. If at all possible, cease taking benefit tenants. Hand these problems back to Government and Councils.
If you do sell up, consider investing your hard earned cash in foreign property or foreign equities. Do your research. Take your investment where it is appreciated.
Only when the PRS is smashed will the powers that be wake up. In the meantime, prepare for 3 year tenancies, and possibly rent controls. This will restrict mobility as accommodation will become scarce.
There seems to be an agenda here, and that is that the Government wants rid of small individual landlords in favour of portfolio landlords.
It is time to fight back!
No benefit tenants, argue every step of the way on licensing. We may not be able to stop it, but we can certainly make life difficult for Councils. Hold them to account on every detail. Film inspections, get tenants onside and give them hell. The alternative is to surrender and lose your business.
Go hard or go home.
Landlords, stop whinging and fight back!
Larry Sweeney
Previous Article
Property sales down 8.8% from last year
Neil Patterson
8:10 AM, 2nd August 2018, About 6 years ago
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.
Neil Patterson
8:12 AM, 2nd August 2018, About 6 years ago
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.
user_17009
1:05 AM, 6th August 2018, About 6 years ago
H B
6:55 AM, 6th August 2018, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Neil Patterson at 02/08/2018 - 08:10
"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."
Only £700? She should have been fined rent times that. Had it been her own house she would have fixed it within 24 hours. Going any period without hot water is awful.
user_17009
16:54 PM, 8th August 2018, About 6 years ago
user_17131
1:24 AM, 9th August 2018, About 6 years ago
user_17131
1:38 AM, 9th August 2018, About 6 years ago
user_17009
16:30 PM, 9th August 2018, About 6 years ago
user_17131
19:53 PM, 9th August 2018, About 6 years ago
user_17009
21:19 PM, 9th August 2018, About 6 years ago