PR activity report for Aug/Sept 2014 May 2012
Press releases/feature articles and comment written and distributed this month August – Landlord & Buy to Let Awards 2014 August – Deposit protection release 27th August – Landlord and Buy to Let Magazine – comment on “when tenants attack” September - Solicitors Journal Feature September - 38% of landlords face eviction problems after failing to protect tenants’ deposit
Other Activity -
Radio interview with BBC Radio 4 You and Yours
Press cuttings Press Cuttings from August - September 2014 Date Publication Title August The Negotiator Six in ten eviction notices are wrong August Moneywise How to handle difficult tenants Magazine 7 August Express & Echo Damage tops list of tenant (Exeter) disputes August Modern Law An Innovative Blend Magazine Aug/Sept Landlord & Buy to Landlords failing to issue legal Let Magazine notices September Residential A case of Revenge Property Investor 9th Property Reporter Failing to protect a deposit September causes 38% of landlords eviction problems 9th Property118 New Deposit Service Launched September 9th Landlord Today 38% of landlords face eviction September problems after failing to protect tenants’ deposit th 10 Property Industry Four in ten landlords needing September Eye legal help ‘broke law on deposits’ th 10 London Housing 38 per cent of landlords face September News eviction problems after failing to protect tenants' deposit 10th September
Eastern Housing News
10th September
South West Housing
10th September
North West Housing News
38 per cent of landlords face eviction problems after failing to protect tenants' deposit 38 per cent of landlords face eviction problems after failing to protect tenants' deposit 38 per cent of landlords face eviction problems after failing
AVE Circulation: 10000 AVE:£980.39 Circulation: 17023 AVE:£3217.5 Circulation: 21132 AVE:£394.24 Circulation: 8000 AVE:£1200 Circulation: 25000 AVE:£678.96 Circulation: 11000 AVE:£648.72 N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Circulation: 2714 AVE:£1133.9
Circulation: 2714 AVE:£1412.2 Circulation: 2714 AVE:£954.5 Circulation: 2714 AVE:£1299.5
th
10 September
South East Housing News
12th September September/ October September/ October 25th September
Cumberland News
26th September September
LandlordZone Newsletter UK Landlord Magazine
Landlord & Buy to Let Magazine Landlord & Buy to Let Magazine Property 118
to protect tenants' deposit 38 per cent of landlords face eviction problems after failing to protect tenants' deposit Damage and redecoration disasters Landlord Action claims ‘revenge eviction’ hyped When tenants attack A Landlords Story – A Warning To Everyone! “Revenge Evictions” law will hamstring landlords 62% landlord notices incorrect
Total Number of Cuttings Total AVE
Circulation: 2714 AVE:£1133.9 Circulation: 25578 AVE:£878.56 Circulation: 25000 AVE:£656.82 Circulation: 25000 AVE:£2546.10 N/A
N/A Circulation: 20000 AVE:£309.10
21 £17,474.39
Total of cuttings: 21 Total AVE (advertising equivalent) £17,474.39 Please note that we cannot provide the advertising equivalent for online coverage, or circulations figures. This is just for print coverage.
Failing to protect a deposit causes 38% of landlords eviction problems Tuesday, September 09, 2014 Published by WARREN LEWIS Landlords & Lettings
| 0 Comments
According to Landlord Action, as many as 38% of landlords calling for advice on evicting a tenant have failed to place their tenants' deposits in a government-recognised scheme within the prescribed 30 days of receiving it. Reviewing enquiries from the start of this year, Landlord Action says there is still a major problem with amateur landlords (and some agents) having very little knowledge of this important piece of legislation, which is seeing an increasing number of landlords facing penalties of up to three times the value of the deposit, which is then awarded to the tenant. The landlords also face penalties if their agent failed to comply with the legislation, which adds tension to the relationship between landlords and their agents. Paul Shamplina, Founder of Landlord Action, believes that there are too many landlords that still do not know enough about being a landlord and their responsibilities. "Many are failing to comply with deposit protection rules and this is having a knock-on effect when landlords wish to evict through Section 21. The simple fact is, ignorance will not solve the problem.” The only way a landlord can legally evict a tenant who will not move out voluntarily (and who is not in arrears or in breach of their tenancy agreement) is via a court order for possession, but in order to obtain this, a landlord must first return the deposit. Furthermore, Landlord Action says they are receiving more and more phone calls from desperate landlords who are being sued by their tenants for compensation for not protecting the deposit. Mr Shamplina adds:“It seems to me, that tenants are becoming savvier than landlords when it comes to buy to let legislation. Landlords, this is your business, you must be fully versed in your responsibilities”. According to Landlord Action’s Legal Team, many solicitors are reluctant to take on these cases as there is no defence against it and it is purely down to the judge’s discretion. In response to the rising number of enquiries with deposit issues, Landlord Action has launched a fixed fee deposit claims mitigation service for landlords, to act on the landlord’s behalf in dealing with the court paperwork and also attempting to reduce the level of penalty the landlord faces. Eddie Hooker, CEO of MyDeposits, one of the Government approved protection schemes, had this to say: “The findings of Landlord Action are somewhat worrying, especially as all three schemes have seen a healthy year on year increase in the number of deposits being protected. Having said that, we should not become complacent and there is clearly more work to be done in ensuring that deposit protection is embraced by the entire private rented sector. Landlords and agents should be aware that protecting the deposit with an authorised scheme is only one part of their legal responsibility. The other requirement is to correctly serve the Prescribed Information to the tenant and this is definitely an area where better understanding of the legislation is needed. The majority of legal cases we see surround the incorrect issuing of the Prescribed Information, or failing to issue it all. All schemes have extensive information on how to comply with the legislation, including timescales on their websites and we urge letting operators to ensure they understand their obligations”.
New Deposit Service launched Paul Shamplina - Published on 09/09/2014 As many as 38% of landlords calling the Landlord Action legal helpline for advice on evicting a tenant have failed to place their tenants’ deposits in a government recognised scheme within the prescribed 30 days of receiving it, or have not even heard of the scheme which came into force back in 2007. Landlord Action has now launched a deposit service to deal with these cases. Reviewing enquiries from the start of this year, there is still a major problem with amateur landlords (and some agents) having very little knowledge of this important piece of legislation, which is seeing an increasing number of landlords facing penalties of up to three times the value of the deposit, which is then awarded to the tenant. The landlords also face penalties if their agent failed to comply with the legislation, which adds tension to the relationship between landlords and their agents. There are too many landlords that still do not know enough about being a landlord and their responsibilities. Many are failing to comply with deposit protection rules and this is having a knock-on effect when landlords wish to evict through Section 21. The simple fact is, ignorance will not solve the problem. The only way a landlord can legally evict a tenant who will not move out voluntarily (and who is not in arrears or in breach of their tenancy agreement) is via a court order for possession, but in order to obtain this, a landlord must first return the deposit. Furthermore, we are receiving more and more phone calls from desperate landlords who are being sued by their tenants for compensation for not protecting the deposit. It seems to me, that tenants are becoming savvier than landlords when it comes to buy to let legislation. Landlords, this is your business, you must be fully versed in your responsibilities. Solicitors are reluctant to take on these cases as there is no defence against it and it is purely down to the judge’s discretion. In response to the rising number of enquiries with deposit issues, Landlord Action has launched a fixed fee deposit claims mitigation service for landlords, to act on the landlord’s behalf in dealing with the court paperwork and also attempting to reduce the level of penalty the landlord faces. Eddie Hooker, CEO of MyDeposits, said “the findings of Landlord Action are somewhat worrying, especially as all three schemes have seen a healthy year on year increase in the number of deposits being protected. Having said that, we should not become complacent and there is clearly more work to be done in ensuring that deposit protection is embraced by the entire private rented sector. Landlords and agents should be aware that protecting the deposit with an authorised scheme is only one part of their legal responsibility. The other requirement is to correctly serve the Prescribed Information to the tenant and this is definitely an area where better understanding of the legislation is needed. The majority of legal cases we see surround the incorrect issuing of the Prescribed Information, or failing to issue it all. All schemes have extensive information on how to comply with the legislation, including timescales on their websites and we urge letting operators to ensure they understand their obligations”.
38% of landlords face eviction problems after failing to protect tenants’ deposit Tuesday 9th September 2014
According to Landlord Action, as many as 38% of landlords who need help to evict a tenant have not protected the tenant’s deposit in accordance with deposit protection rules introduced in 2007. The figures come from the Landlord’s Action’s legal helpline. The eviction specialist has reviewed enquiries from the start of this year and concluded there is still a major problem with amateur landlords – and even some agents – understanding deposit legislation. The rules state that unless the tenant’s deposit it protected in a legally-recognised protection scheme within 30 days, and the tenant sent the prescribed information, the landlord could face a penalty of up to three times the value of the deposit, which is then awarded to the tenant. Landlords also face penalties if their agent failed to comply with the legislation, which adds tension to the relationship between landlords and their agents. Landlord Action founder Paul Shamplina said: “There are too many landlords that still do not know enough about being a landlord and their responsibilities. Many are failing to comply with deposit protection rules and this is having a knock-on effect when landlords wish to evict through Section 21. The simple fact is, ignorance will not solve the problem.” The only way a landlord can legally evict a tenant who will not move out voluntarily (and who is not in arrears or in breach of their tenancy agreement) is via a court order for possession, but in order to obtain this, a landlord must first return the deposit. Furthermore, Landlord Action says it is receiving more and more phone calls from desperate landlords who are being sued by their tenants for compensation for not protecting the deposit. “It seems to me, that tenants are becoming savvier than landlords when it comes to buy to let legislation. Landlords, this is your business, you must be fully versed in your responsibilities,” said Shamplina. According to Landlord Action’s Legal Team, many solicitors are reluctant to take on these cases as there is no defence against it and it is purely down to the judge’s discretion. In response to the rising number of enquiries with deposit issues, Landlord Action has launched a fixed fee deposit claims mitigation service for landlords, to act on the landlord’s behalf in dealing with the court paperwork and also attempting to reduce the level of penalty the landlord faces. Eddie Hooker, CEO of MyDeposits, said: “The findings of Landlord Action are somewhat worrying, especially as all three schemes have seen a healthy year on year increase in the number of deposits being protected. Having said that, we should not become complacent and there is clearly more work to be done in ensuring that deposit protection is embraced by the entire private rented sector. “Landlords and agents should be aware that protecting the deposit with an authorised scheme is only one part of their legal responsibility. The other requirement is to correctly serve the prescribed information to the tenant and this is definitely an area where better understanding of the legislation is needed. The majority of legal cases we see surround the incorrect issuing of the prescribed information, or failing to issue it all. All schemes have extensive information on how to comply with the legislation, including timescales on their websites and we urge letting operators to ensure they understand their obligations.”
Four in ten landlords needing legal help ‘broke law on deposits’ Written by: ROSALIND RENSHAW | SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 Print
Four in ten landlords calling a legal helpline have failed to protect their tenants’ deposits. Some have not even heard of mandatory tenancy deposit protection – in force since 2007. In many cases, they cannot find a solicitor to act for them. According to eviction firm Landlord Action, 38% of landlords who call their legal helpline for advice on evicting a tenant have broken the law on tenants’ deposits. Landlord Action says there is still a major problem with amateur landlords and some agents having very little knowledge of the legislation. Landlords risk penalties of up to three times the value of the deposit, which is then awarded to the tenant. The landlords also face penalties if their agent failed to comply with the legislation. Paul Shamplina, founder of Landlord Action, said: “There are too many landlords that still do not know enough about being a landlord and their responsibilities. “Many are failing to comply with deposit protection rules and this is having a knock-on effect when landlords wish to evict through Section 21. The simple fact is, ignorance will not solve the problem.” The only way a landlord can legally evict a tenant who will not move out voluntarily and who is not in arrears or in breach of their tenancy agreement is via a court order for possession, but in order to obtain this, a landlord must first return the deposit. Furthermore, Landlord Action says they are receiving more and more phone calls from desperate landlords who are being sued by their tenants for compensation for not protecting the deposit. Shamplina said: “It seems to me that tenants are becoming savvier than landlords when it comes to buy-to-let legislation.” He also said many solicitors are reluctant to take on cases where deposits have not been properly protected, as there is no defence against it and it is purely down to the judge’s discretion.
In response to the rising number of inquiries with deposit issues, Landlord Action has launched a fixed-fee deposit claims mitigation service, to act on the landlord’s behalf in dealing with paperwork and also attempting to reduce the level of penalty the landlord faces. Eddie Hooker, CEO of MyDeposits, one of the Government approved protection schemes, said: “Landlords and agents should be aware that protecting the deposit with an authorised scheme is only one part of their legal responsibility. “The other requirement is to correctly serve the Prescribed Information to the tenant, and this is definitely an area where better understanding of the legislation is needed. The majority of legal cases we see surround the incorrect issuing of the Prescribed Information, or failing to issue it at all.”
A Landlords Story – A Warning To Everyone! Paul Shamplina - Published on 25/09/2014 It has become a popular past-time of late to bash landlords. Day after day there are cynical stories in the media about rich capitalist landlords seeking to exploit poor beleaguered tenants, abuse them and then throw them out on the street for a minor infraction. This type of polarising and partisan approach is frankly divisive and unhelpful. The truth is that within any constituent group there will always be a minority of those who seek to hide behind the law and exploit it to the detriment of others. Sadly this is part of the human condition and at Landlord Action we get to see both sides on a daily basis. What is lost amongst all this is that there are genuine stories that deserve to be heard. Somewhere amongst all the debate there are real people who are having their lives upside down, enduring months,sometimes years, of stress to regain access to that most basic of human rights,their own property. It’s not just tenants. Last week I spent a considerable amount of time on the phone to Jo. Jo isn’t a rich portfolio managing entrepreneur chasing the bottom line or profit cynically riding the crest of an ever growing market of rising property values, she is an ordinary mother and grandmother who has seen the very worst that the rental market can offer. When I spoke to her she was on her way to check out the progress of renovations on her property. This is a property that she reluctantly moved out of due to personal circumstances. It used to be well maintained, equipped, and a considerable source of pride to her. Today it is being effectively gutted. The place she called home for many years, raised her family in and which held many happy memories was obliterated and she is now spending thousands of pounds to bring it back to something approaching habitable condition. Her only mistake, which she admits, was to rent her property to someone in a difficult situation, on the personal recommendation of a family friend. Out of compassion she rented her family home to a women who systematically destroyed her life. The well furnished and presented property was reduced to a shell. Property stolen, windows nailed shut, interior doors kicked in, appliances damaged beyond repair, family members threatened, neighbours alienated and abused. The Police and the RSPCA were a regular occurrence at a home which quickly resembled something from a war zone. After months of hard work, we sent the bailiffs in. Unfortunately what confronted us was an all too familiar scene of devastation. Realistically Jo realises that she has very little financial or judicial redress and the errant tenant escapes without punishment or consequence. After nearly two years of exhaustive attempts to negotiate, and abortive legal efforts, Jo finally approached us, as many of our clients do via a personal recommendation. As she said “as soon as Paul and the team we were involved things started happening. Finally I managed to get these awful people out. The impact on me and my family has been terrible, I have endured years of hell and the family home which I cherished has been tarnished forever. I really want my story to serve as a warning to others.It really can happen to anyone.” Sadly Jo’s story is all too common. As the demand for property continues to outstrip demand it is vital that landlords, whether ‘accidental’ or ‘professional,’ seek out the best advice. Due diligence, a proactive agent and the right legal backup and support can make all the difference between peace of mind and a situation that can test your sanity.
“Revenge Evictions” law will hamstring landlords Viewpoint by Tom Entwistle What at first glance may seem an innocuous change to the no-quibble eviction process afforded to landlords since the introduction in the 1988 Housing Act, the section 21 procedure, in my opinion has very serious and far reaching consequences for the future of the private rented sector (PRS). A recent Government press release says: “The government vow to work to outlaw so-called ‘revenge evictions’ that destroy a tenant’s right to expect to rent a safe and secure home.” This follows a couple of rather spurious surveys and a Shelter petition to Communities Minister Stephen Williams and a private member’s Bill on the matter, due to be brought before the House in November by Sarah Teather MP. The press release goes on to say: “Ministers gave their backing in principle to a Private Member’s Bill to stop the small minority of rogue landlords who, rather than meet their legal duty to keep their properties at a reasonable standard and remove health and safety hazards, instead evict tenants simply for asking for essential repairs to be made – on the condition that the Bill only targets bad landlords and cannot be used by tenants to frustrate legitimate evictions.” The way this is intended to work is: “…extend the existing restrictions on a landlord’s power to evict, where they don’t protect a deposit or have a licence they are required to hold, to situations where a health and safety hazard has been identified by environmental health officers.” My reaction to this is: do these ministers have any conception of the “can of worms” they will open up for the vast majority of good landlords with this seemingly innocuous change? I came into the private rental market in the 1980s for one reason and one reason only: the introduction of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) and the guaranteed right through s21 to get a property back if all else fails. I consider myself a good landlord, always following the rules to the letter, and I’ve only had to use the s21 process on one or two times over many, many tenancies, and 30 plus years of letting, but the security afforded by s21 was always there. During my youth I had witnessed a long decline into non-viability of my grandparents’ and parents’ residential property portfolio through rent controls and life-long security of tenure afforded by previous Landlord & Tenant Acts. There was absolutely no way I was going into a lettings business under such circumstances. Fast forward 40 years and we see yet again a prospective Labour Government is threatening to bring back rent controls, compulsory long-term tenancies and restrictions on eviction. And surprise, surprise, these Coalition ministers are happy to support a measure which will make it difficult if not impossible to remove a bad tenant. The ministers say they don’t want to add, in their words “…unnecessary regulation that strangles industry in red tape and introducing laws dictating length of tenancies are a mistake which will make life unnecessarily difficult for landlords and investors.” The above statements say to me than none of these ministers have any conception of how landlord and tenant relationships pan out in practice: even with the best will in the world, contentious matters such as repairs and health and safety issues, much like anti-social behaviour ones, are horrendously difficult and expensive to prove one way or another in a court of law. It is pretty obvious to any experienced landlord what will happen. Ask some tenants to leave, for whatever reason – good landlords only ever do this as a last resort – and a repair / safety hazard will mysteriously appear, whether there was one there before or not. These are the scenarios I envisage under the changes: for a start, Environmental Health Offices and the County Courts are both under resourced and overloaded with cases which will delay matters for weeks if not months. The existing system of “accelerated” possession through the county courts regularly takes 16 weeks or longer. Faced with a tenant who is prepared to cause havoc in a property and cause purposeful damage to avoid paying rent, and add to this the highly contentious issues such as damp and condensation, problems with blocked access for the landlord to carry out genuine repair work, and arguments over what is allowable as wear and tear, and a good landlord has a nightmare situation to deal with.
The landlord starts off an eviction process using section 8 (landlord has to prove breach of contract) as he can no longer use s21. The legal aid funded tenant defends the action in court and brings a counterclaim against the landlord for damages. At the first 15 minute hearing the judge sets a trial date for six months hence and asks for expert reports. The upshot of all this, if the landlord does not win, is the tenant walks away having paid no rent for 9 or 12 months, leaving the landlord paying all costs, and in two recent cases I’m aware of, these costs have been well in excess of £15,000. This is no exaggeration; these cases are happening right now. Far from protecting good landlords from “rent tape” this innocuous sounding addition to the legislation will mean this scenario becomes a far more regular occurrence. There can only be one result, it will drive good landlords out of the business. My view is that the no quibble s21 process must be retained at all costs if private rented sector (PRS) is to continue to grow and provide much needed rental accommodation. This is not to deny there is a small minority of bad landlords out there, but the authorities should use the ample powers they already have to stop bad practice. To bring in a measure such as this which punishes ALL landlords is just counterproductive. Countless statistics have been bandied about to show how big or small the problem of so called “revenge evictions” actually is, but The National Landlords Association (NLA) and the Residential Landlords Association (RLA) are very concerned about how Shelter’s survey findings are being used: the RLA has commented that they “ignored the inconvenient truths”. According to the Ministry of Justice figures there were 37,739 repossessions in 2013. This figure represents just 0.5% of ALL tenancies – private tenancies as well as social housing tenancies. By far the majority of these evictions were for rent arrears. Far less were for issues like ant-social behaviour, damaging the landlord’s property, and not to forget the many instances of where a landlord simply wants to return to live in a home s/he let out short-term. It’s not possible to show from these figures how many evictions where instigated at the request of a tenant who wanted to be re-housed by the council, but this is a substantial number. David Carter, of the Sheriff’s Office, someone with experience of thousands of landlord and tenant issues has said: “The Government has already given councils £6.7 million to tackle the problem of rogue landlords and in the last 7 months, 23 councils have inspected more than 6,700 properties and 1,700 landlords are facing further action or prosecution. “I think the [Ministry of Justice] statistics on actual evictions do demonstrate that the problem is smaller than is being made out and that those rogue landlords could be handled in a way that does not discourage property owners from renting. “Whilst threatening tenants with eviction is easy, actually evicting them is a little more involved. I have written before about regular delays of 12 to 16 weeks before County Court bailiffs are able to repossess property.” Paul Shampalina, of Landlord Action, also with years of experience in these matters says: “Revenge/retaliation eviction was a term recently coined to describe a minority of rogue landlords… this should not be confused with a landlord’s right to exercise a Section 21 notice simply because he/she would like their property back. “The property market is strong at present and naturally many landlords, a large percentage of which were accidental landlords in the first place, have decided that now is the time to cash in their chips. For others, personal circumstances may have changed meaning they now require the rented property to live in themselves.” In my view the private members Bill proposed by Sarah Teather, and supported by Brandon Lewis MP, Minister of State for Housing, and Communities Minister Stephen Williams MP, is a very worrying development for all private residential landlords and needs to be vigorously opposed.