PR activity report for June/July 2014 May 2012
Press releases/feature articles and comment written and distributed this month June - “Study reveals 62% of landlord notices are incorrect” June - Entry into The Negotiator Awards June - Landlord & Buy to Let magazine – comment on councils calling for tougher fines and easier prosecution of rogue landlords. July - Landlord Action comments on MPs Bill to stop ‘retaliatory eviction’ July - Feature for Modern Law Magazine – Feature on becoming a regulated ABS July – Comment on the Property Redress Scheme for Property Industry Eye July - Landlord Action says use of Section 21 is not “Revenge Eviction”
Upcoming Coverage -
The London Magazine Residential Property Investor feature Modern Law Magazine
Press cuttings Press Cuttings from June & July 2014 Date Publication Title th 30 May Landlord Today Landlord Action names busiest courts for landlord possession claims
AVE Circulation: 14,100
30th May
Property Reporter
Landlord Action names its busiest courts for landlord possession claims
31st May
London Housing News
June
PropertyDrum
23rd June
Property Industry Eye
Landlord Action names top 5 Circulation: 2714 busiest courts for possession AVE:£556.60 claims Extortionate cost of possession Circulation:12000 AVE:£414.75 Six in ten eviction notices have errors, claim Circulation: 16,000
23rd June
Property Reporter
23rd June
Property 118
24th June
Landlord Law
Circulation: NA AVE:£NA
Study reveals 62% of landlord notices are incorrect
Circulation: 6,056
Landlord Action study of landlords notices
Circulation: NA AVE:£NA
Landlord Action survey shows
Circulation: NA AVE:£NA
62% of eviction notices are incorrect
24th June
Landlord Today
24th June
London Housing News
24th June
Eastern Housing News
24th June
South West Housing
24th June
North West Housing News
24th June
South East Housing News
25th June
Property Secrets
July
3rd July
Property Investor News Landlord & Buy to Let Magazine JungleDrum
11th July
Hexham Courant
8th July
Landlord Today
July
Study reveals 62% of landlord notices are incorrect
Circulation: 14,100
Six in ten eviction notices 'are incorrect', claims Landlord Action Six in ten eviction notices 'are incorrect', claims Landlord Action Six in ten eviction notices 'are incorrect', claims Landlord Action Six in ten eviction notices 'are incorrect', claims Landlord Action Six in ten eviction notices 'are incorrect', claims Landlord Action 62% of landlord notices are wrong Over 60% of landlord notices are incorrect Tougher fines call for criminal landlords Six in ten eviction notices are wrong Damage to property causes most rows Landlord Action warns about ‘retaliatory eviction’ loophole
Circulation:2714 AVE:£579.60
Circulation:9092 AVE:£528.08 Circulation:25578 AVE:£868.87 Circulation: NA AVE:£NA Circulation:892993 AVE:£1771.64 Circulation: 16,000
10th July
Goole Times
11th July
Cumberland News
14th July
LettingsSupermark et.com
Property damage main cause of tenant problems Damage tops landlords’ disputes list Caution advised on retaliatory evictions bill
16th July
Evening Standard
I take no notice of texts
23rd July
Property Industry Eye
Why we support new ombudsman – Shamplina and Shepperson
29th July
Property118
29th July
Property Reporter
Using a section 21 should not be considered a Revenge Eviction Is use of Section 21 'Revenge
Circulation:2714 AVE:£579.60 Circulation:2714 AVE:£579.60 Circulation:2714 AVE:£579.60 Circulation:2714 AVE:£579.60 Circulation: NA AVE:£NA Circulation:12000 AVE:£877.11 Circulation:25000 AVE:£714.94 Circulation:25000 AVE:£750.00 Circulation:213677 AVE:£684.70 Circulation: 14,100
Circulation: NA AVE:£NA Circulation: 6,056
Eviction'? 30th July
Property Industry Eye
31st July 31st August
Letting Agent Today Landlord Zone
August
The Negotiator
More tenants happy to be evicted as they want a council Circulation: 16,000house Lettings guru says S21 "not revenge eviction" Exaggerating claims about Evictions? Six in ten eviction notices are wrong
Total Number of Cuttings Total AVE
Circulation: 16,000
Circulation: NA AVE:£NA Circulation: NA AVE:£NA Circulation: 10000 AVE:£980.39 29 £11,045.08
Total of cuttings: 29 Total AVE (advertising equivalent) £11,045.08 Please note that we cannot provide the advertising equivalent for online coverage, or circulations figures. This is just for print coverage. A press release was also sent out towards the end of May so coverage for this come in June.
Landlord Action names busiest courts for landlord possession claims Friday 30th May 2014
Landlord Action says London’s county courts are struggling to keep up with demand, listing its current busiest courts for landlord possession claims as Central London, Willesden, Barnet, Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, and Croydon. The evictions specialist says the number of people renting in London has grown at an astonishing rate, now accounting for around 25% of the capital’s population, but many of the systems and processes to support this have simply not kept pace. It says London courts are overstretched by the level of possession proceedings, with many of them even using administration centres to process the claims, rather than handling the processing in-house. Julie Herbert, head of legal at Landlord Action, said: “There is a continued lack of resource available to deal with the processing of claims and a limited number of judges to hear cases, especially in areas which are more heavily tenanted, and/or have a high volume of residents that have been impacted by cuts to housing benefit, therefore, more likely to be facing eviction.” Landlord Action says it tries where possible to mediate between landlords and tenants so that disputes are resolved before they require court action. However, with cuts to housing benefit, a lack of affordable housing supply in the capital and tenants having greater knowledge of the system, many cases still end up this way, with 25% of Landlord Action’s business going through the top five busiest London courts. This means longer waiting times for landlords to the cost of thousands in lost rent, which can result in lenders threatening repossession proceedings. Offering the following advice to London landlords facing this situation, Ms Herbert says: “The best thing landlords can do is ensure their property paperwork is always in order i.e. tenancy agreements, deposit protection, correct notices served. Even those that don’t need to start eviction proceedings could well find themselves in such a position in the future, so it’s a good idea to get a “health-check” on current paperwork so that any issues apparent now, can be put right for a later date. “Any slight error could see a claim struck-out, which having just waited eight weeks for a hearing date, would result in a landlord having to start the process all over again. Another two months lost rent.”
Landlord Action names its busiest courts for landlord possession claims Friday, May 30, 2014 Published by WARREN LEWIS Landlords & Lettings
| 0 Comments
Tenant eviction firm, Landlord Action, says London's County Courts are struggling to keep up with demand, listing its current busiest courts for landlord possession claims as Central London, Willesden, Barnet, Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, and Croydon. The number of people renting in London has grown at an astonishing rate, now accounting for around 25% of the capital’s population, but many of the systems and processes to support this have simply not kept pace, according to Landlord Action. It says London courts are overstretched by the level of possession proceedings, with many of them even using administration centres to process the claims, rather than handling the processing in-house. Julie Herbert, Head of Legal at Landlord Action says: “There is a continued lack of resource available to deal with the processing of claims and a limited number of judges to hear cases, especially in areas which are more heavily tenanted, and/or have a high volume of residents that have been impacted by cuts to housing benefit, therefore, more likely to be facing eviction.” Landlord Action says it tries where possible to mediate between landlords and tenants so that disputes are resolved before they require court action. However, with cuts to housing benefit, a lack of affordable housing supply in the capital and tenants having greater knowledge of the system, many cases still end up this way, with 25% of Landlord Action’s business going through those names as the top five busiest London courts. This means longer waiting times for landlords to the cost of thousands in lost rent, which can result in lenders threatening repossession proceedings. Offering the following advice to London landlords facing this situation, Ms Herbert says: “The best thing landlords can do is ensure their property paperwork is always in order i.e. tenancy agreements, deposit protection, correct notices served. Even those that don’t need to start eviction proceedings could well find themselves in such a position in the future, so it’s a good idea to get a “health-check” on current paperwork so that any issues apparent now, can be put right for a later date. Any slight error could see a claim struck-out, which having just waited 8 weeks for a hearing date, would result in a landlord having to start the process all over again. Another two months lost rent.”
Six in ten eviction notices have errors, claim Written by: ROSALIND RENSHAW | JUNE 23, 2014 Print
Over six out of ten legal notices served by agents and landlords on tenants are incorrect. The claim comes from eviction specialists Landlord Action which looked at the last 200 instructions received from agents and landlords that had served their own legal notices on tenants (Section 8 and Section 21). The findings reveal that 62% of these notices were incorrect, which meant they were invalid or posed a greater risk of being thrown out at court – resulting in the need for new notices to be served. The study found the top five reasons for notices being invalidated are:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Incorrect expiry dates Failure to comply with deposit legislation Inaccurate schedules on rent arrears The method of how the notice was served Typing errors on the notice
Paul Shamplina, managing director of Landlord Action, said mistakes in eviction notices are among the most common reasons for delays and increased costs in trying to recover possession from a tenant who has an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. Shamplina said he understood that some landlords serve their own notices to save expense. He said: “I understand the need for landlords to consider every cost, but I can’t stress enough that the notice is the most important part of a possession court case and the slightest mistake can end up costing a landlord significantly more than the cost savings – in extra legal fees, delays and lost rent. “Over the last year, we have encountered an increasing number of problems with notices served by landlords and agents. “Unfortunately, some landlords and even agents are making classic errors when drafting and serving notices. “The worst-case scenario for a landlord desperate to regain possession of a property is to be three months down the line and find they have to start the whole process all over again, costing them a small fortune in legal fees and lost rent.”
Study reveals 62% of landlord notices are incorrect Monday, June 23, 2014 Published by WARREN LEWIS
Landlord Action has carried out a study of the last 200 instructions received from landlords and letting agents that have served their own legal notices on tenants (Section 8 and Section 21). The findings reveal that 62% of these notices were deemed incorrect, which meant they were invalid or posed a greater risk of being thrown out at court; resulting in the need for new notices to be served. Some landlords choose to serve notices themselves as a cost saving exercise, but Managing Director of Landlord Action, Paul Shamplina, warns mistakes in eviction notices are among the most common reasons for delays and increased costs when a landlord tries to recover possession from a tenant who has an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. He said: “I understand the need for landlords to consider every cost but I can’t stress enough that the notice is the most important part of a possession court case and the slightest mistake can end up costing a landlord significantly more than the cost savings - in extra legal fees, delays and lost rent.” The study carried out by Landlord Action found the top five reasons for notices being invalidated are: 1.
Incorrect expiry dates
2.
Failure to comply with deposit legislation
3.
Inaccurate accompanying rent arrears schedules
4.
The method of how the notice was served
5.
Typing errors on the notice
Mr Shamplina explains: “Over the last year, we have encountered an increasing number of problems with notices served by landlords and agents. As a result, our legal department has carried out a full analysis of our last 200 cases, not only to get a true reflection of how common this is, but also to find out exactly what mistakes are being made. Unfortunately, some landlords and even agents are still making classic errors when drafting and serving notices. "The worst case scenario for a landlord desperate to regain possession of a property is to be three months down the line and find they have to start the whole process all over again, costing them a small fortune in legal fees and lost rent. That’s why in cases where we are not instructed to draft the notices, we carry out a full ‘health check’ on notices/legal paperwork, before it is filed at court.” Landlord Action will email an advice note to any landlord or agent that has served notice themselves highlighting any errors and stating the risks these could pose at court. If completely incorrect, they will advise that it must be re-served.
Landlord Action study of landlords notices
Paul Shamplina - Published on 23/06/2014 View Member Profile
Our latest study reveals 62% of landlord notices are incorrect. Landlord Action has carried out a study of the last 200 instructions received from landlords and letting agents that have served their own legal notices on tenants (Section 8 and Section 21). The findings reveal that 62% of these notices were deemed incorrect, which meant they were invalid or posed a greater risk of being thrown out at court; resulting in the need for new notices to be served. Some landlords choose to serve notices themselves as a cost saving exercise but the survey serves are a stark reminder that DIY is often a false economy. Mistakes in eviction notices are among the most common reasons for delays and increased costs when a landlord tries to recover possession from a tenant who has an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST). I understand the need for landlords to consider every cost but I can’t stress enough that the notice is the most important part of a possession court case and the slightest mistake can end up costing a landlord significantly more than the cost savings – in extra legal fees, delays and lost rent. The study found the top five reasons for notices being invalidated are:1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Incorrect expiry dates Failure to comply with deposit legislation Inaccurate accompanying rent arrears schedules The method of how the notice was served Typing errors on the notice Over the last year we have encountered an increasing number of problems with notices served by landlords and agents. As a result, our legal department has carried out a full analysis of our last 200 cases, not only to get a true reflection of how common this is, but also to find out exactly what mistakes are being made. Unfortunately, some landlords and even agents are still making classic errors when drafting and serving notices. The worst case scenario for a landlord desperate to regain possession of a property is to be three months down the line and find they have to start the whole process all over again, costing them a small fortune in legal fees and lost rent. That’s why in cases where we are not instructed to draft the notices, we carry out a full ‘health check’ on notices/legal paperwork, before it is filed at court.” Landlord Action will email an advice note to any landlord or agent that has served notice themselves highlighting any errors and stating the risks these could pose at court. If completely incorrect, they will advise that it must be re-served.
Landlord Action survey shows 62% of eviction notices are incorrect Posted on June 24, 2014 by Tessa Shepperson •0 Comments
Landlords looking to evict their tenants need to take care with their eviction notices. This is the strong message coming from eviction experts Landlord Action’s recent survey. Their survey showed that out of the last 200 instructions received – where landlords or their agents had served their own notice – 62% were incorrect. As Paul Shamplina rightly warns, this can put their whole claim at risk. For example it can result in
delays the whole claim being rejected (meaning you will have to start again – an expensive option if the tenant is not paying rent), and possibly an order for costs being made in the tenant’s favour – for example if the tenant was in receipt of legal aid. The top reasons found by Landlord Action for incorrect notices were: 1. Incorrect expiry dates 2. Failure to comply with deposit legislation 3. Inaccurate accompanying rent arrears schedules 4. The method of how the notice was served 5. Typing errors on the notice There is a lot of free information available for landlords and agents, so there is really no excuse for getting it wrong – and Judges will normally be strict. They rightly consider that evicting someone from their home is a very serious matter and they expect landlords to get their paperwork right. Note that Landlords can download free section 8 and section 21 notices with guidance notes, from my Landlord Law Store & LIbrary.
Study reveals 62% of landlord notices are incorrect Tuesday 24th June 2014
A tenant eviction firm has claimed that almost two-thirds of section 8 and 21 notices issued to tenants by landlords and letting agents are incorrect. Landlord Action carried out a study of the last 200 instructions it received where the eviction process had already begun and found that 62% of the notices contained mistakes. Managing director Paul Shamplina warned that mistakes in eviction notices are among the most common reasons for delays and increased costs when a landlord tries to recover possession from a tenant. “I understand the need for landlords to consider every cost but I can’t stress enough that the notice is the most important part of a possession court case and the slightest mistake can end up costing a landlord significantly more than the cost savings - in extra legal fees, delays and lost rent,” he said. The study carried out by Landlord Action found the top five reasons for notices being invalidated are: Incorrect expiry dates, failure to comply with deposit legislation, inaccurate accompanying rent arrears schedules, the method of how the notice was served, and typing errors on the notice. “Over the last year, we have encountered an increasing number of problems with notices served by landlords and agents. As a result, our legal department has carried out a full analysis of our last 200 cases, not only to get a true reflection of how common this is, but also to find out exactly what mistakes are being made,” said Shamplina, “Unfortunately, some landlords and even agents are still making classic errors when drafting and serving notices. The worst case scenario for a landlord desperate to regain possession of a property is to be three months down the line and find they have to start the whole process all over again, costing them a small fortune in legal fees and lost rent. That’s why in cases where we are not instructed to draft the notices, we carry out a full ‘health check’ on notices/legal paperwork, before it is filed at court.”
62% of landlord notices are wrong
62% of landlord notices are wrong 25th June 2014 A tenant eviction firm has claimed that almost two-thirds of section 8 and 21 notices issued to tenants by landlords and letting agents are incorrect.
Landlord Action carried out a study of the last 200 instructions it received where the eviction process had already begun and found that 62% of the notices contained mistakes.
Managing director Paul Shamplina warned that mistakes in eviction notices are among the most common reasons for delays and increased costs when a landlord tries to recover possession from a tenant.
"I understand the need for landlords to consider every cost but I can't stress enough that the notice is the most important part of a possession court case and the slightest mistake can end up costing a landlord significantly more than the cost savings - in extra legal fees, delays and lost rent," he said.
The study carried out by Landlord Action found the top five reasons for notices being invalidated are: Incorrect expiry dates, failure to comply with deposit legislation, inaccurate accompanying rent arrears schedules, the method of how the notice was served, and typing errors on the notice.
JUNGLEdrum News Six in ten eviction notices are wrong Research carried out by Landlord Action, the tenant eviction specialist, found that 62 per cent of the last 200 instructions received from landlords and letting agents that served their own Section 8 and Section 21 legal notices on tenants were incorrect. This meant they were invalid or posed a greater risk of being thrown out at court; resulting in the need for new notices to be served. Some opt to serve notices themselves as a cost saving exercise, but Managing Director of Landlord Action, Paul Shamplina (left), warns that mistakes in eviction notices are among the most common reasons for delays and increased costs when a landlord tries to recover possession from a tenant who has an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST). He commented: “I understand the need for landlords to consider every cost but I can’t stress enough that the notice is the most important part of a possession court case and the slightest mistake can end up costing a landlord significantly more than the cost savings - in extra legal fees, delays and lost rent.” Landlords are required to follow the correct legal procedure when serving notice on their tenant. But the study carried out by Landlord Action found the top five reasons for notices being invalidated were incorrect expiry dates, failure to comply with deposit legislation, inaccurate accompanying rent arrears schedules, the method of how the notice was served and typing errors on the notice. Shamplina continued: “Over the last year, we have encountered an increasing number of problems with notices served by landlords and agents. As a result, our legal department has carried out a full analysis of our last 200 cases, not only to get a true reflection of how common this is, but also to find out exactly what mistakes are being made. Unfortunately, some landlords and even agents are still making classic errors when drafting and serving notices.
“The worst case scenario for a landlord desperate to regain possession of a property is to be three months down the line and find they have to start the whole process all over again, costing them a small fortune in
legal fees and lost rent.”
Commenting on the study carried out by Landlord Action, Glenn Ackroyd (right), Director of EweMove.com, an online estate agents, said: “Unfortunately it’s easy to make mistakes with the dates on the Section 21 claim form as well as how and when it is served on the tenant. All of which can result in the claim for possession being refused by the court.
Ackroy explained that his firm automatically issue a Section 21 to tenants when a new landlord comes on board, which lasts for the lifetime of the tenancy. He added: “This gives all our landlords protection from the outset and should there be any issues with arrears or if the landlord needs to serve notice, we are able to reclaim the property after month six of the tenancy. This is not only best practice in the industry but it is also something that not all other letting agents offer as standard for their managed properties.”
Landlord Action warns about ‘retaliatory eviction’ loophole Tuesday 8th July 2014
An evictions expert has warned Liberal Democrat MP for Brent Central Sarah Teather to act with caution in her proposed Private Members’ Bill to stop “retaliatory evictions” Paul Shamplina, founder of Landlord Action, says that without proper guidelines and enough resources to manage this process, tenants could use it as a loophole against reputable and responsible landlords. He said: “We accept there are rogue landlords manipulating and preying on tenants in a very buoyant lettings market and they should not be able to get away with evicting simply because a tenant has asked for repairs. However, we have also experienced cases where tenants have purposely caused damage to a property to show greater disrepair problems for the benefit of a court case. “The complexities of determining what is deemed ‘reasonable repair’ will require consideration and considerable resource to avoid possession claims being unnecessarily thrown out. Landlord must still be able to use Section 21 notices if they need their property back to sell or live in themselves, for example.” Landlord Action says there would need to be a greater number of Environmental Health Officers, who are already overloaded, in order to properly investigate properties reported as retaliatory evictions. “There must also be something worked into the Bill which will ensure tenants give landlords sufficient access to the property in order to carry out the said repairs. This is a major complaint of landlords who come to Landlord Action,” Shamplina added, “The majority of landlords are good respectable people who will happily carry out repairs, and my concern is that, if not thought out and implemented correctly, such proposals could end up being detrimental to those good landlords. There needs to be firm guidelines as to how this is going to be actioned and I would advise Sarah Teather to consult landlord organisations and expert companies in respect to helping with the detail of this Bill.” As the National Landlords Association (NLA) has done this week, Landlord Action also questioned the figures quoted by Shelter suggesting more than 200,000 people a year are evicted, or served with an eviction notice, after complaining to their landlord about a problem that was not their responsibility. “I would be interested to see how these are broken down as the figures seem surprisingly high,” said Shamplina.
Caution advised on retaliatory evictions bill Jul 14, 2014 17:20:51 PM Landlord Action had advised caution when it comes to a proposed bill to stop 'retaliatory evictions' in the private rented sector (PRS).
The regulation has been proposed by Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather over concerns that landlords are forcing tenants out of their homes in revenge for them complaining about conditions or asking for improvements.
However, Landlord Action founder Paul Shamplina has warned such a bill could be used as a loophole against reputable landlords and letting agents unless it is managed carefully.
He stated: "We accept there are rogue landlords manipulating and preying on tenants in a very buoyant lettings market and they should not be able to get away with evicting simply because a tenant has asked for repairs.
"However, we have also experienced cases where tenants have purposely caused damage to a property to show greater disrepair problems for the benefit of a court case.�
Mr Shamplina said careful thought needs to go into what is considered 'reasonable repair' in a PRS home and claimed landlords will need a legal right to access a property to carry out maintenance work, as this is something that is lacking at the moment.
He added that a bill would place more of a burden on already overloaded Environmental Health Officers, who would be needed to carry out checks on properties.
The PRS expert advised Ms Teather to consult with figures from within the sector when working on the details of the bill to ensure it only affects rogue operators and not those landlords and letting agents doing a good job.
Revenge evictions are a subject that is receiving a lot of media attention at the moment. Property Reporter recently published figures from Propertyletbyus.com that show the number of landlords ending tenancies has reached a ten-year high.
Jane Morris, managing director of the latter company, said landlords are in a difficult position as they have no choice but to evict tenants who run into financial problems and cannot pay their rent.
Why we support new ombudsman – Shamplina and Shepperson Written by: ROSALIND RENSHAW | JULY 23, 2014 Print
Two prominent industry figures have expressed their support for the new ombudsman, the Property Redress Scheme, after concerns were raised about it in the House of Lords. Baroness Hayter, who queried whether it had commercial interests, used to chair the Property Standards Board and campaigns for the regulation of letting agents to be raised to that of sales agents, so that they can be banned from the industry. In the Lords last week, where the requirement to make letting agents join an approved redress scheme was debated, Hayter asked why a “for-profit” organisation had been authorised to run an ombudsman scheme. She said that the Property Redress Scheme – which is run by insurance brokers Hamilton Fraser – represented the first time that a profit-making body had been allowed to operate any ombudsman scheme. Hayter received no answer to her question, but on behalf of the Government, Baroness Williams said: “Perhaps I could write to the noble Baroness on that point.” Eye covered the debate in our Monday issue, which also included other concerns raised by Hayter. We have now received this statement from property lawyer Tessa Shepperson and evictions specialist Paul Shamplina, both of whom are on the advisory board of the PRS. Their statement says: “We (Tessa Shepperson and Paul Shamplina) are Council members of the newly formed Property Redress Scheme. “The points set out in the [Eye] article were extensively discussed by us with the PRS before we agreed to join. “The situation, as we understand it, is as follows: “All the redress schemes will exchange information with each other about expelled members and none of them, including PRS, will accept a member who has been expelled from another scheme for failing to comply with a decision, unless and until that member complies with it.
“So, an expelled member who fails to comply will be unable to join any scheme. The local authority can then issue a fine of up to £5,000 for the offence of not being a member of an accredited scheme, which can be enforced through the magistrates courts. “The redress schemes will also be able to ‘name and shame’ expelled members. “The decision itself can be enforced by the complainant through the courts through normal civil means if the agent does not comply. “All in all, it is unlikely that any agent will be prepared to risk all this unless they are in the 0.1% rogue element that no regulation can really deal with. “So far as a code is concerned, we understand that a draft code is currently with the housing minister and will be published before the regulations come into force. “The PRS will work to this code, save where a member has signed up to a different and more onerous code, in which case the PRS will apply the standards of that code when making any decision about that member. “All three of the approved redress schemes are private companies and will need to make money in order to operate. “This is no different from the tenancy deposit scheme regime. The schemes have to be selfsupporting. “We would also like to point out that this compulsory redress scheme is the first move towards a much needed regulation of the lettings industry. “It may not be as comprehensive as many people would like, but it is considerably better than the current situation. “At least after the regulations come into force, landlords and tenants will have somewhere to complain and get redress if they have suffered loss or poor service from their letting agents or property managers. “We are therefore proud to support and be a part of this new initiative.” Eye asked Shamplina for a further comment in relation to whether he was satisfied that Hamilton Fraser would not, for example, use the redress scheme to market its Client Money Protection insurance policy. Shamplina, who is founder of Landlord Action, told us: “I am confident there is no conflict of interest as the PRS is a standalone scheme. It is not compulsory for agents to purchase Client Money Protection in order to sign up, but they will of course have access to this. “What we are doing, however, is trying to improve standards in the industry by highlighting the benefits and advantages of having deposit and client money protection in place.
“Landlord Action always has half a dozen debt recovery cases against rogue agents which have stolen rent from landlords. If CMP was in place, these landlords would be protected.” “Our aim is to help the lettings industry win back its reputation and continue the great work the vast majority of agents do in the local communities. “We are there to help and guide those smaller agents that want to give a good service but don’t know how to.” Ombudsman Services says on its website that it is a non-profit making organisation, and yesterday afternoon The Property Ombudsman confirmed to Eye that it is a not for profit company which is not limited by guarantee and does not have share capital.
Using a section 21 should not be considered a Revenge Eviction
Paul Shamplina - Published on 29/07/2014 View Member Profile I would like to provided clarity over what constitutes a Revenge Eviction, and what is simply a landlord serving notice without giving a reason, after concerns have been raised that the term was being misused in the media, giving good landlords a bad name. The Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) recently revealed that twice as many people had reported problems with being evicted, despite not being in arrears, in the first quarter of 2014 compared with the same period in 2013. Whilst this correlates with the rise in landlords wishing to evict under Section 21 accelerated possession proceedings (36,000 in 2013) I am keen to stress that this is not Revenge Eviction, but simply a change in the Buy to Let market which is being driven by increasing sale prices and a lack of social housing. This year Landlord Action has seen a record rise in accelerated possession proceedings from landlords being forced to evict, because tenants want to be re-housed by the council. Revenge or Retaliation eviction was a term recently coined to describe a minority of rogue landlords taking advantage of the system and issuing a Section 21 notice to rid themselves of tenants, instead of carrying out disrepair works. This is something which the Government is looking to address at a later date. However, this should not be confused with a landlord’s right to exercise a Section 21 notice simply because they would like their property back. The housing 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.
Contact Landlord Action Specialists in tenant eviction and debt collection. Regulated by The Law Society.
Is use of Section 21 'Revenge Eviction'? Tuesday, July 29, 2014 Published by WARREN LEWIS Landlords & Lettings
| 0 Comments
Landlord Action has provided clarity over what constitutes “revenge eviction” after Founder Paul Shamplina raised concerns that the term was being misused in the media, giving good landlords a bad name. The CAB (Citizens Advice Bureaux) recently revealed that twice as many people had reported problems with being evicted, despite not being in arrears, in the first quarter of 2014 compared with the same period in 2013. Whilst this correlates with the rise in landlords wishing to evict under Section 21 accelerated possession proceedings (36,000 in 2013), Mr Shamplina is keen to stress that this is not “Revenge Eviction”, but simply a shift in the buy-to-let market which is being governed by strong sales market conditions and a lack of social housing. This year, Landlord Action has seen a record rise in accelerated possession proceedings from landlords being forced to evict because tenants want to be re-housed by the council. He comments: “Revenge/Retaliation eviction was a term recently coined to describe a minority of rogue landlords taking advantage of the system and issuing a Section 21 notice to rid themselves of tenants, instead of carrying out disrepair works – something which the Government are looking to address at a later date. However, 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.”
More tenants happy to be evicted as they want a council house Written by: ROSALIND RENSHAW | JULY 30, 2014 Print
Evictions specialist Paul Shamplina says that most landlords are not serving Section 21 notices as “retaliatory evictions” but simply because of changes in the market. He said that some landlords want to cash in on a stronger sales market. In other cases, he says the tenants themselves want to be evicted because they want to be rehoused by the local council. Councils will not normally rehouse people unless they have been made homeless. Shamplina, of Landlord Action, said that the media is bandying about the term “revenge eviction” – and harming the reputation of good landlords. His comments come after Citizens Advice revealed that twice as many people had reported problems with being evicted, despite not being in arrears, in the first quarter of 2014 compared with the same period in 2013. Shamplina said his firm has seen a record rise in accelerated possession proceedings from landlords being forced to evict because tenants want a council house.
Lettings guru says S21 "not revenge eviction" Thursday, 31 July 2014Written by Graham Norwood
The rise in the number of tenants being given notice without any specific reason is not a symptom of growing ‘revenge evictions’ but simply a consequence of market conditions or a lack of social housing according to respected lettings guru Paul Shamplina.
The Citizens Advice Bureau recently revealed that twice as many people had reported problems with being evicted, despite not being in arrears, in the first quarter of 2014 compared with the same period in 2013.
But Shamplina - co-founder of Landlord Action and a board member of Property Redress Scheme, one of three lettings sector ombudsman-style services - says that while the CAB’s findings correlate with last year’s rise to 36,000 in the number landlords wishing to evict under Section 21’s accelerated possession proceedings, this does not necessarily mean they were all revenge evictions. “This is not revenge eviction but simply a change in the buy to let market which is being driven by increasing sale prices and a lack of social housing. This year Landlord Action has seen a record rise in accelerated possession proceedings from landlords being forced to evict, because tenants want to be rehoused by the council” he says.
Shamplina says the government should look at the genuine issue of revenge evictions when landlords use S21 notices to rid themselves of tenants, instead of carrying out disrepair works. But he says this characterises only a minority of cases. “This should not be confused with a landlord’s right to exercise a Section 21 notice simply because they would like their property back. The housing 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” says Shamplina.
Exaggerating claims about Evictions?
01 August, 2014
Are leading charitable organisations exaggerating claims about tenant evictions in order to bring about their desired changes to housing legislation? The growth of the private letting market is focussing attention on private landlords and in particular the activities of those who operate in the twilight zone of renting to tenants who would traditionally have been housed in the social sector. These, for obvious reasons, are the most difficult tenants to house and manage but they represent a small fraction of the private rental sector (PRS) as a whole. Operating in this segment of the market requires a certain type of landlord; usually they fall into two camps: those with the tenacity and professionalism to run a good operation for these types of tenants, providing good accommodation and treating them with fairness and respect, despite putting up with more than their fair share hassle and problems. The landlords in the second camp are invariably less than professional; the cowboy operators who are prepared to flout the law, bend the rules and generally operate in a cavalier fashion which sometimes not only puts lives at risk, they bully and intimidate rather than provide a courteous service. Unfortunately for the vast majority of responsible landlords they become tarred with the same brush as the delinquents, and it would seem that between the charities and the media, this misconception is being deliberately sustained for public consumption. It’s this latter group that most decent landlords wish the authorities would clamp down on, and it’s this latter group the charities tend to focus their attention on, because it’s the group they are regularly in contact with. It’s perhaps understandable that these charities get a distorted view of landlords as a whole when all they come into contact with is the small minority of bad ones. The National Landlords Association recently hit back strongly at claims by the Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) that it has experienced a 38 per cent increase in cases of PRS landlords threatening tenants, who have no rent arrears, with eviction. These claims by CAB, and to a large extent these are mirrored by those of Shelter, appear to run completely counter to published government statistics which show that only around 9 per cent of all English tenancies are ended by the landlord, and of those brought to court, over 90 per cent of those are due to rent arrears. Reporting a large increase in so called “revenge evictions” particularly in London and the South East, CAB and Shelter are arguing that landlords are taking advantage of a housing undersupply situation, where landlords simply replace tenants if they complain about living conditions or necessary repairs. The practices may be used by those operating on the fringes of the law, but as the landlord organisations constantly argue, good landlords have an incentive to keep their properties in good repair and avoid vacant periods when no rent is coming in. In any case they would argue that evicting a tenant is no simple matter; it can take months, is very time consuming for the landlord and can be very expensive in legal costs. MD of eviction specialist Landlord Action, Paul Shamplina, has recently commented that the media is picking up on these exaggerated claims about “revenge evictions” and misusing them to give all landlords a bad name. The figures do show that there has been a rise in the number of landlord’s instigating eviction proceeding under the Section 21 process, but this is down to the fact that there are now thousands more tenancies in existence and growing, and the financial stress the recession has put many tenants and some landlords under. The overwhelming reason for eviction proceedings is rent arrears, not the so called “revenge eviction”. The situation reflects the growth of the rental market and the fact that many tenants of private landlords should really be in social housing: in fact many tenants now request that their landlord evicts them so they can become a priority for councils to rehouse them. As the law stands, any tenant that leaves accommodation voluntarily will not be considered for rehousing by a local council, but if they have been evicted by their landlord they automatically become the council’s responsibility for rehousing. This is a big incentive for some tenants to get themselves “evicted”. In addition to these “revenge eviction” claims, the charities are arguing that tenants are still being cheated on deposits, with landlords refusing to pay them back, despite the operation of the tenancy statutory deposit protection schemes. This is despite figures from the deposit protection agencies operating throughout the UK that show deposit disputes represent a very small proportion of all ending tenancies. So much so that some are now arguing that deposit protection has been a sledge “hammer to crack a nut”; that the size of the problem nowhere near warrants the cost of running these expensive schemes which is costing the taxpayer thousands. http://goo.gl/pSAQQ9 Landlords are not one of the most revered professional groups in the country; they could perhaps be compared to journalists and politicians in terms of popularity. But is it fair to exaggerate claims of wrongdoing on the part of a minority, when the vast majority, just like the other professionals mentioned, are trying to do a good honest job and provide a public service?