Landlord held responsible for nuisance caused by tenants

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Landlord held responsible for nuisance caused by tenants

    Hi all - back after a rather long break but this important issue has been in my mind for a few weeks.

    Did you know that you could be taken to court and fined £22,000 for a nuisance caused by your tenant's barking dogs!!!

    Read this article from Environmental Health News 29th January 2010

    Neighbours suffered dog noise nuisance

    It seems to me URGENT that an organisation representing Landlords investigates this case fully and supports the appeal of Ms Adewunmi against the prosecution and conviction.

    It is blatantly unfair that the case against the tenants whose dogs actually caused the nuisance will not be heard until March.

    What exactly were the terms of the notice against Ms Adewunmi the landlord? Did the Council ask her to evict the tenants for contravention of tenancy conditions?

    Would the Council's notice have been abated if the landlord gave the tenants notice to quit and the Court took month after month to get the bailiffs to remove the tenants?

    I cannot see it being reasonable for the Council to issue a notice against the landlord requiring things like sound insulation where the prime cause of the nuisance is the tenant obviously acting outside normal and reasonable tenancy conditions.

    Is it appropriate to ask a landlord to evict a tenant on the grounds of contravention of tenancy conditions where the tenant is in direct breach of the laws enforced by the Council?

    With an intermittent noise nuisance surely landlords should not be expected to get out of bed at all hours and at short notice to investigate. That must be the obligation of the Environmental Health Department and for that Department to take direct action against the culprit and not the landlord.

    The report does not make it clear whether the case refers to joint tenants or to several tenants in a House in Multiple Occupation.
    Vic - wicked landlord
    Any advice or suggestions given in my posts are intended for guidance only and not a substitute for completing full searches on this forum, having regard to the advice of others, or seeking appropriate professional opinion.
    Without Plain English Codes of Practice and easy to complete Prescribed Forms the current law is too complex and is thus neither fair to good tenants nor good landlords.

  • #2
    Hellfire - this seems like a really stupid decision by both the council and the mags - unless there is more to the story than has been written.

    Along the basis of this - if I loan my car to someone and they are caught speeding - the court could fine me as well as the speeder simply because I own the car - how can I control what speed the borrower does??

    Same here, how can the landlord control what the tenant does except by way of terminating the tenancy and seeking possession. Even then, unless rent was in arrear, the landlord might well be pushed to get a discretionary possession order based on 8 dogs causing a nuisance.

    Seems like this landlord was between a rock and a hard place!

    Reminds me of when my local council at the time some 25 years ago decided to issue a planning enforcement notice against me for caravans containing otherwise homeless tenants on my land. I said ok, I will disconnect their supplies on the last day - no you wont said the same council, you will taken to court for harassment - you must obtain a court order. So I went for a court order - told it would be heard in 6 months - only 28 days to comply with enforcement notice!!! Rang assistant solicitor to council up to seek advice about the predicament - I said, if I move them by force, you will prosecute me -if they arnt off by 28 days, you will prosecute me aqnd your housing officer told them to stop till I get court order - he just laughed. Changed his tune though when I told him I had him on tape and would be along to his office within the half-hour to knock his teef that far down his throat he would have to push his toothbrush up his arse to clean em (exact words).

    I was by the way until about 2 months previous a member of staff of same authority and had been retired on ill health grounds - so he knew that I knew where his office was!!!!

    Quick call to the Chief Executive and played tape - all resolved - council would rehouse the tenants!

    Anyway, back to the case in discussion - the landlord was unrepresented - thats bad - a good solicitor would have surely seen this off???

    Comment


    • #3
      It looks unreasonable, but I think we need to know the full facts.

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, at least it says the tenants are facing prosecution as well. The whole thing sounds bonkers. I think part of problem was that the landlady conducted her own defence, presumably very badly. Didn't realize magistrates could impose such high fines - I thought the limit was £5K?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by davidjohnbutton View Post
          I said ok, I will disconnect their supplies on the last day - no you wont said the same council, you will taken to court for harassment - you must obtain a court order. So I went for a court order - told it would be heard in 6 months - only 28 days to comply with enforcement notice!!! Rang assistant solicitor to council up to seek advice about the predicament - I said, if I move them by force, you will prosecute me -if they arnt off by 28 days, you will prosecute me aqnd your housing officer told them to stop till I get court order - he just laughed.
          I had a slightly similar situation once with building control insisting I install a fire door with a self-closer for a kitchen, but because the building was Grade II* listed, the listed planning department insisted I couldn't install a fire door. Either way I was breaking the regs. *sigh*

          Comment


          • #6
            We don't know the full story. Usually cases get half reported to create a headline and the truth is nowhere near what the press say.

            The landlord had 2 1/2 years from the first abatement notice until the court decision - one can safely assume that these were some pretty extreme circumstances for the problem to drag on that long. It certainly seems possible that she had opportunities to resolve the problem over 30 months.

            Comment


            • #7
              Glad some of my views seem to be shared.

              Agree the information we have been provided through the magazine report only gives us very basic information.

              I have difficulty in conceiving the content of a valid abatement notice unless the Council were taking the view that the landlord was running a business and the noise was directly due to the improper conduct of that business.

              What action could the notice require? Sound insulation would be inappropriate as the nuisance could and should be rectified by the Local Authority taking action against the tenant.

              Could the abatement notice require the landlord to evict the tenants? I think both tenant associations and landlords should be concerned if pressure was being brought to secure eviction of tenants on the grounds of that the tenant was causing a statutory nuisance that could, and should, be rectified by an abatement notice on the tenant.

              This case seems a thin end of a wedge that could affect all landlords unfairly Efforts made to investigate and ensure the landlord is, in the interests of us all, properly and effectively represented.
              Vic - wicked landlord
              Any advice or suggestions given in my posts are intended for guidance only and not a substitute for completing full searches on this forum, having regard to the advice of others, or seeking appropriate professional opinion.
              Without Plain English Codes of Practice and easy to complete Prescribed Forms the current law is too complex and is thus neither fair to good tenants nor good landlords.

              Comment


              • #8
                And it appears that the maximum fine for person failing to abide by an abatement notice is £5000 but goes up to max £20,000 if its a business.

                There is definitely more to this than meets the eye!!!!!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Found this report in the local press.

                  It's still vague on the details we really need to know

                  http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/new..._barking_dogs/
                  Vic - wicked landlord
                  Any advice or suggestions given in my posts are intended for guidance only and not a substitute for completing full searches on this forum, having regard to the advice of others, or seeking appropriate professional opinion.
                  Without Plain English Codes of Practice and easy to complete Prescribed Forms the current law is too complex and is thus neither fair to good tenants nor good landlords.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My guesswork only:
                    L was served with Council's Notices but failed to enforce against T. So Council regarded L as being passively involved- hence prosecution.
                    JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                    1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                    2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                    3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                    4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
                      My guesswork only:
                      L was served with Council's Notices but failed to enforce against T. So Council regarded L as being passively involved- hence prosecution.
                      Good point Jeffrey but the article states the tenants are also facing prosecution and will appear in Court in March!

                      I will contact Hertsmere Council today to see if they can provide a full report to enable us to understand the situation.
                      Vic - wicked landlord
                      Any advice or suggestions given in my posts are intended for guidance only and not a substitute for completing full searches on this forum, having regard to the advice of others, or seeking appropriate professional opinion.
                      Without Plain English Codes of Practice and easy to complete Prescribed Forms the current law is too complex and is thus neither fair to good tenants nor good landlords.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It would interesting to see what law was used to prosecute the LL (addressee of notice failing to comply with it).

                        If it was failure to comply with the abatement notice (the council making LL vicariously liable for his Ts), I would question whether the council has the power and authority to impose such an obligation of a LL in respect of another;s actions, or whether this is ultra vires.

                        All very interesting. Normally criminal law has a higher bar to jump through than its civil law counterpart, but certainly the chance of suing the LL on the same facts woud appear unlikely to succeed.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by davidjohnbutton View Post
                          . Changed his tune though when I told him I had him on tape .........................


                          Quick call to the Chief Executive and played tape - all resolved - council would rehouse the tenants!
                          Surprised the council didn't prosecute you for not warning recipient at outset of call that you were taping him!


                          LL's liable for tenants dogs, certificates for this, regulations for that. Soon it'll be LL's responsibility if tenants are obese.

                          I'm thinking of getting out of this game

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by bullybantam View Post
                            Surprised the council didn't prosecute you for not warning recipient at outset of call that you were taping him!




                            Actually, you might be surprised to learn that it IS NOT an offence to tape record a telephone conversation where one of the parties is unaware that they are being taped. It IS an offence to tape a telephone conversation where NO PARTY is aware.

                            I have had taped evidence admitted in more than one court case where I taped a telephone conversation which I myself was party to and it was my deliberate intention to use that evidence in court.

                            If you warn someone that they are being taped beforehand - they may well not say things that they would when they are not aware. So my friends, you assume that every telephone call is being taped and choose your words carefully lest there is someone at the other end taping you!!! BTW, if you do end up taping someone, dont use a digital recorder, use a proper tape recorder as it is easier to alter a digital recording.

                            What did actually surprise me was that I did not have police knocking at my door over the teef threat!!! I would then have pleaded extreme provocation and probably just got a warning since I never actually carried out the threat but instead placed a call almost immediately to the relevant Chief Executive.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by davidjohnbutton View Post
                              Actually, you might be surprised to learn that it IS NOT an offence to tape record a telephone conversation where one of the parties is unaware that they are being taped. It IS an offence to tape a telephone conversation where NO PARTY is aware.


                              .
                              I am surprised to learn that, I do know telecom engineers are only people in the country allowed to monitor phone calls without a warrant but I didn't realise you didn't have to warn third party call was recorded.

                              I've recorded calls twice, but did warn them beforehand.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              • Referencing question
                                kangoo1
                                A couple wants to rent from me, she is on maternity leave and will not be returning to her previous employment, he is permanently employed and moving due to a job transfer. I have referenced him for the full rent and his guarantor has been successfully referenced.
                                I am going to prepare the ast...
                                22-07-2017, 17:19 PM
                              • Claiming for protected deposit
                                mandm
                                This is an interesting one, got me into a spin.
                                Tenants signed AST but decided to leave after 6 months and 3 days (problem with moving) using the break clause in the AST. I protected the deposit using DPS (Insured) and returned the deposit minus deductions when the moved out.
                                I served the...
                                21-07-2017, 08:00 AM
                              • Reply to Claiming for protected deposit
                                JK0
                                I'll leave it at that. I'm not going to get into one of JPK's interminable arguments.
                                22-07-2017, 16:28 PM
                              • Discussion - GDPR and implications on landlords
                                MrShed
                                I've just posted something on GDPR and then wondered whether it had been discussed on here before - a quick search implies its never been mentioned.

                                I thought I would raise a topic to discuss it and the implications on landlords.In effect this is a replacement of the Data Protection Act...
                                20-07-2017, 15:01 PM
                              • Reply to Discussion - GDPR and implications on landlords
                                jpkeates
                                That's simply one of the Schedule 2 exemptions which, if met, allows a process using personal data at all - all the other principles still apply in parallel (where it can be stored, be not excessive, kept up to date etc).

                                So, while it might be OK because it relates to a contract, there...
                                22-07-2017, 15:22 PM
                              • Excessive estate agent fees
                                Cml241
                                I have a property which I started renting out via an agency. When the contract started, they found new tenants, did the relevant checks etc and charged an upfront fee which equates to approx one month's rent. As one year has almost passed, the agent has approached me asking if I want them to 'renegotiate'...
                                21-07-2017, 16:26 PM
                              • Reply to Excessive estate agent fees
                                mariner
                                A new 12 month fixed term does provide LL & T with extra security but can lead to complications for either if their resp circumstances/legislation change during the new AST.
                                Personally, I would prefer if a orig AST was for a fixed 6 month term, followed by an SPT that required both LL &...
                                22-07-2017, 14:09 PM
                              • Reply to Discussion - GDPR and implications on landlords
                                jjlandlord
                                In this case there should be no problem because:...
                                22-07-2017, 12:30 PM
                              • Reply to Excessive estate agent fees
                                jpkeates
                                I'm not sure they're "lying", they're just making some assumptions.

                                The agent can't decide if something is "too" risky or not - there are upsides and downsides to having a new fixed term agreement, and they're right to point out, for example, that the income would be...
                                22-07-2017, 12:28 PM
                              • Reply to Discussion - GDPR and implications on landlords
                                jpkeates
                                Unless the tenant has given consent for the data to be used in this way, probably.

                                There's a grey area with this kind of data, because it's obviously been obtained for a purpose (which is to facilitate the renting of a property) and that's what it's being used for.
                                There's usually...
                                22-07-2017, 12:23 PM
                              Working...
                              X