Section 21 abolition stinks!

Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 16/09/2019 - 18:09
I have the utmost respect for most of your posts to but state that you have shared photos of somebody's private home ( whatever the state) on twitter is disappointing.
This is not a personal observation, all I am saying is take a professional approach and deal with the issue at hand- arrange to get the bathroom cleared, arrange to get the toilet unblocked and all under the eyes of the private sector housing officer . We have no idea what drives a person to conduct themselves in this manner however when you choose to become a landlord you must face the consequences good or bad. As we all know its a difficult job but rewarding otherwise we would have all left.

Reply to the comment left by at 16/09/2019 - 15:47
Hi Michael

You have got the wrong end of the stick. Luke is not the landlord, he is the agent, so he does not need advice on how to proceed. He is not bleating, he is posing a serious question.

The tenants have not been named, only Luke knows where they live, and I doubt they will read this article. What this is about is how could tenants who are not treating the property in a tenant-like manner be evicted without Section 21?

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 16/09/2019 - 15:13
Thanks for that explanation and I would have refused to work in that room.

.....holy hell!

Reply to the comment left by Martin Rdg at 17/09/2019 - 07:32
Yes, English.

I've also had tenants who save their urine, or have not cleaned up poo and vomit, and it can be disgusting trying to deal with this. There are specialist cleaning companies that can deal with this.

Sometimes it is due to mental health problems, and when I was a Housing Officer for a local authority I saw a flat where the tenant did the same thing, except the toilet was not broken, he simply had delusions about aliens coming up through the toilet when it is flushed, therefore he did not flush! - In this instance a specialist bio-hazard clean up team had to be called in while the tenant was sectioned under the mental health act.

However, when it is a private tenant and private landlord, such behavior can cause a problem for the landlord as he may need to carry out repairs, or get gas safety checks done, etc, and it is not reasonable for contractors/tradesmen to work in such conditions. The landlord may then have no other option but to evict the tenants, and this is where the absence of a s21 procedure could lead to an inability to rectify the problem. I guess the landlord would only be able to rely on the s8 process in relation to repeated breaches of conditions of the tenancy agreement?

Reply to the comment left by at 16/09/2019 - 15:47
Would the council consider the landord to be breaching the couple's right to privacy if the landlord provided such information to the council?

Reply to the comment left by at 16/09/2019 - 18:02
Luke wasn’t BLEATING as it happens he was pointing out the very real hole that exists to cover this type of scenario in the S8 process! Who on god’s green earth wants to keep a pair of tenants who are sh*tting in buckets & keeping it for posterity! Not me I can assure you. I’m actually very soft hearted and caring towards people with issues, but I’m also in business and that business is not running a psychiatric unit. If I get a tenant like this I want to know that a mechanism exists by which I can evict them and get my property back. Up until now that would be S21. Post repeal it’s an unknown quantity and THAT’S the point of this post!

Rogue landlord or rogue tenant?
As a landlord (15 properties), I get fed up with how landlords are depicted in the press. It is nearly always “rogue landlords”, rarely do you hear “rogue tenants” mentioned. Whilst I am not claiming that all landlords are virtuous angels, the majority – I believe – seek to provide good quality accommodation at a fair market rent. Being a landlord is a business, that means it should turn a profit, nothing wrong in that (despite press portrayals). We must meet numerous regulations and I believe there are ca. 150 pieces of legislation we have to conform to, from being border control “agents”, to gas safety checks, to licensing (in some areas), to changing tax rules, and lots more - as regular LUJ (Letting Update Journal) readers will very well know. As I have a full-time job and a family, I use agents to ensure that the properties are managed well, and repairs dealt with swiftly. In most cases, I have good reliable agents and good reliable tenants. However, I have had some nightmare agents (disappeared) and some nightmare tenants (who I wished would disappear!). This article tells the story of a nightmare tenant, names are changed for privacy.
Julie (not real name) took up occupation of the property on 8th June 2016, a single mum with a young son. Housing benefit was paid every 4 weeks, the tenant topped up the amount due and all was well. Inspections were carried out regularly and all was clean and tidy with no problems.
In August 2017, the Council sent a letter to the agent to say the Housing Benefit payments would be dropping, the agent advised the tenant of the increased amount she would need to top up with. However, from August to December 2017, the tenant went into arrears.
In January 2018, my agent received a letter from Julie’s boyfriend Tim (not real name) that the tenant had vacated, and he was now living in the property. The agent insisted that he come to see her to discuss the situation. The same month, we got a letter from the Council to say that the tenant (Tim) had advised there was a problem with damp in the property. We instructed a national company to do a survey and assess the property. An inspection of the property with Tim was arranged, and to collect the right to rent documents and application forms. The property was clean and tidy, just some writing in emulsion paint on a bedroom wall left by Julie. Tim said he would organise to have this painted over and apologized.
Tim was sent a Tenancy Agreement for him to sign. Although chased many times, he refused to return the Tenancy Agreement. This meant that the property was still in the previous tenant’s name and we had no means of contacting her. Despite not signing the Tenancy Agreement, Tim was very cooperative and started to pay rent on the property. However, this soon stopped.
As I always seek to get repairs done quickly and efficiently, I paid up front for the damp treatment to be dealt with. The Council were pressurizing us to get them completed. Tim was given the damp company’s telephone number on the 20th of February 2018 to contact them to arrange a mutually convenient time and date to start the works. He was chased many times to do this. On 26th March 2018, Tim told my agent he had spoken to another branch office of the damp company to arrange for the job to be transferred to a more local office, he was awaiting someone to contact him to arrange a time and date. He texted my agent on the 28th March 2018 to advise the damp company could come late April. Tim was also informed that we wanted to get a company to do some works to get it above E on the EPC, he ignored this request. Tim then stopped answering messages or getting back to my agent.
On the 24th of April 2018, Tim was informed by my agent that as he had not allowed access to the damp company, my agent would arrange access using the office set of keys – so we could get the work done. This was arranged for 27th April 2018 and a message left with Tim. He then replied to say he would call my agent after work, as it was difficult for him to speak at work. However, no contact was made. As some skirting boards would need to be removed, my agent arranged for a maintenance company to attend to this issue, however, Tim said that there was no need to do this, he was happy to remove them.
On the 27th of April, Tim called at 6:30am to say he’d arranged someone to be at the property from 8:30am to 3:00pm, the damp company were due at 9:00am. At 9:10am, there was no-one at the property, the damp company were there, Tim would not answer his phone or respond to texts. The keys would not work, and the damp company had to leave. This was the last contact we had with Tim.
Because works needed to be carried out at the property (Council still pressurizing us), and despite significant arrears, we could not initiate repossession proceedings until the works were carried out. However, the Council still has their file open regarding these works (I wrote to the Council pointing out that I had even paid in advance for the works to be done, the tenant would not allow us access, what more could I do?!). The Council took a long time trying to contact Tim to give him the opportunity to have the works carried out. Eventually the council agreed to close their file, we could complete the Section 21. As Tim had paid some rent, we were advised that the Section 21 should be issued to him.
In June 2018, we received a letter from Environmental Health as a neighbour had complained to them regarding rubbish that had accumulated in the yard. Tim had been throwing all his rubbish out of the top windows and not having it removed by the binmen. The Council issued us a notice to inform us that if the rubbish was not removed by us, they would organise it to be removed and the bill sent to us. My agent argued that the property was tenanted, but when he didn’t respond, they had “no choice” but to make the landlord responsible for the removal. We got some contractors in, the bags had disintegrated and there were rats within the pile, one of which bit the contractor.
During this time (waiting for the Section 21 to take effect), my agent visited the property regularly (giving appropriate written notice each time), hoping that Tim would leave due to the notice, of his own free will. It became apparent that nothing was really being moved in the living room. On speaking to the neighbours, one said he never saw lights on downstairs but would regularly see lights on upstairs, indicating the tenant was still in the property.
My agent took more advice regarding the Section 21 (from TFP Help Line) and were advised that as the original tenant (Julie) had not given notice or relinquished the keys to the property, then the Section 21 should have been issued in her name and Court proceedings issued in her name. A new Section 21 was therefore issued on Julie on 20th August 2018. There were further calls from Environmental Health that the rubbish was accumulating again. The first company called refused to come again (rats!), as did several other companies, however after lots of conversations with the Council they agreed to help us with the Council’s team at my expense (did I put the rubbish there?!).
Then at the beginning of October 2018 we sought to get the annual gas safety check done. The company doing this were given a strict time limit to contact the tenant. A letter was hand delivered to the property informing the tenant that the safety check needed to be carried out and should he not make contact with the agent, an appointment was made for 9am on Friday 19th October, where the agent would attend with the gas engineer and gain access by whatever means needed.
Having had no reply from the tenant, the agent attended the property with the gas company and allowed the tenant until 9:30am, when it was apparent he was not going to be present. As the tenant had changed the locks, the agent did not have keys. The gas company proceeded to take the beading from the edge of the door but found the tenant had put a large sliding bolt lock on the inside and had deadlocked the top lock. The gas company used a hacksaw to cut through the large bolt and applied pressure to get through the deadlocked Yale lock. When access was finally gained, it was found the tenant had jammed chairs up against both the back and front doors to stop us gaining access.
On entry to the property, both internal doors were found to have been taken off their hinges and propped up in the living room, there was mouldy dog food in the living room, and although dusty and a little unkempt, it was obvious that this room was not being used. However, in the kitchen, the boiler had been burnt at the front and was deemed unsafe. The gas company thought that the gas was possibly getting bypassed, but this could not be established for certain. Due to the unsafe boiler, no certificate was carried out and the gas engineer capped off the gas.
An inspection of the whole property was carried out. Part of the ceiling in the kitchen had fallen due to the damp not being attended to, there was lots of rubbish on the floor and the worktops. The bathroom drainage was completely blocked with human excrement – filling both the toilet and the sink (!). The second bedroom was filled to waist height with bags and boxes. The main bedroom was where the tenant was living, evidenced by clothes, TV and games console and several empty food packets.
There was a ladder in the living room, it became apparent that the tenant was using the dining room window to gain access to the property, climbing on to the window ledge, going through the top window and using the ladder at the other side.
We got a maintenance company to attend the property to change the Yale lock on the front door (which had had to be snapped off). A note was left for the tenant explaining that if were to need the new key, he would have to contact the agent’s office for this. He never did.
Again, the property was regularly monitored.
Once the Section 21 had expired, proceedings were issued. However, in late February 2019 we were informed that these had been dismissed (the agent had failed to check one particular box on the form). We tried to appeal this decision, however, a second judge refused to deal with it.
This was a very frustrating time. We wrote to the tenant to inform him that we were carrying out an inspection on 7th March 2019. We attended the property with the maintenance company who had to drill out the lock as – although we had keys – the tenant had again deadlocked the lock.
Upon entry, it was noted that no post had been removed from behind the door for several months. Comparing conditions with photos taken in October 2018, nothing had been moved in either the living room or kitchen. The fridge had food dating back to May 2018 (10 months old!). The dining room window was now locked, which left us with the puzzle of how he was gaining access (or exit). The only explanation we could come to – given the bathroom window (on the first floor) being open – was that he was using a ladder?
In the bathroom, the toilet was still full of excrement. There was half a pizza box on the floor with excrement on it. There were at least 20 black bags at the top of the stairs which were also believed to contain human waste. There were bottles containing urine. Subsequent work found shoeboxes with human excrement in them. (Boxes were checked in case valuable papers – e.g. passport/driving licence – were found, which would have been retained for the tenant.)
Things had been moved within the master bedroom. Following this inspection – and again following advice taken beforehand – we changed the Yale lock yet again and also made the property secure by locking the bathroom window.
On Monday 13th March 2019, my agent received a call from a lady who knew we had had the locks changed the previous week – we assumed she was a neighbour. However, it turned out she was the mother of Julie (the previous tenant), who was calling on Tim’s behalf, who knew the locks had been changed and wanted to retrieve his belongings from the property. My agent asked Julie and her mother to come into the office, which they did, and were shown photos of the damage, told about the arrears and that the tenancy was still in Julie’s name. She was horrified. She had been told by Tim (her former partner) that he had been paying the rent and that he had signed the property over to himself, thus relinquishing her responsibilities. She became very distraught and explained she would do anything she could to resolve the matter. She offered to help clear the property, however, with the property being so contaminated due to the human waste, and her being clearly pregnant, we felt that this was not wise. She did, however, provide a contact number and sent us an email relinquishing the property with immediate effect and that any items remaining in the property could be removed and that she did not want anything keeping.
We therefore finally got possession.
We have booked the damp course company to come in early May (soonest they were available), and a decorator to freshen the property up, I plan to then sell the property.

As a case study in a “nightmare tenant” situation, this true story illustrates a point in discussions around landlords and tenants, namely, there is constantly a discussion around creating a “rogue landlords database”, which I have no objection to, provided there is a “rogue tenants database”, so the likes of a Tim can be identified and either refused private accommodation, or be managed very tightly until he has shown he can live in a civilized manner in a property.
The Council’s behaviour – pressurizing me to get the damp fixed (I wanted to, the tenant refused access!) and writing aggressive letters to me about the rubbish in the yard (I didn’t put it there!) – seemed ill-targeted. Why not focus their efforts in tracking the tenant down instead and get them to allow access/clear the rubbish?
We went for Section 21 proceedings as opposed to Section 8, as Section 21 is usually considered more reliable in regaining possession, a judge hearing a Section 8 against Tim might have given him lots more chances, but his behaviour – I would say – did not merit extra chances. In this case, getting possession through Section 21 proved challenging and time consuming for the reasons explained above, however, lacking a no-fault Section 21 mechanism in the future (as proposed) could make getting a bad tenant out even more difficult.

Reference other comments relating to Luke's case:
* My tenant did NOT have a mental illness, he would present nicely, he also was careful that what could be seen through the windows of the property made it look OK. He was just badly behaved.
* (I had a son who DID have mental illness (Paranoid Schizophrenia) and who - sadly - ended up taking his own life. He actually managed his property meticulously.)
* My agent and I have worked hard on this situation together, always double checking that we are doing the right thing according to the law, and giving the tenant plenty of chances to redeem himself, but in the end you have to draw a line.
* I am now selling the property, it will need several £ks spent to restore to a saleable condition (at a reasonable price), although I will certainly lose money (ca. £15k) on it compared to the price I paid 15 years ago.

Good luck Luke.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 16/09/2019 - 15:13
How often were inspections being done, this should have been found way before it got that bad!??