Landlord held responsible for nuisance caused by tenants

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

  • davidjohnbutton
    replied
    Ordinary mini tape recorder with an inductive suction held coupler on the earpiece connected to the mic socket

    Leave a comment:


  • snow
    replied
    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 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.

    What kind of device did you used to record the calls ?

    Leave a comment:


  • davidjohnbutton
    replied
    Email as below sent to Hertsmere BC

    Reply awaited - will post it on here asap


    Good afternoon,

    I am very interested in this http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=28322

    On behalf as a member of the Landlordzone forum, can I ask a couple of questions please?

    1. How on earth can a landlord be, as this case seems to portray, responsible for the actions of a tenant? This seems to be very much like the owner of a motor vehicle being held responsible for the driver to whom he loans it when that driver speeds (i.e. punishing both owner and driver).
    2. You apparently served notices on the landlord as well as the tenant. What did you require the landlord to do (i.e. evict the tenants, obtain a court order reducing the dogs – what????)
    3. The maximum fine for a breach of a nuisance abatement notice seems to be £5000 but £20000 if the breach is in the course of a business. So how come the landlord was fined in excess of the maximum or was that costs?
    4. Do you really think it is fair, just and equitable that a landlord should be held responsible in this way for the actions of tenants whom the landlord has no control over.
    5. Is the reporting accurate or is there more to this than meets the eye to coin a phrase??


    Regards


    David J. Button

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by Worldlife View Post
    Is there a danger if nothing is done and Hertsmere obtain judgement in their favour that we have case law established that the Landlord becomes directly responsible for the misdemours of his/her tenant?
    I do not think so.

    This is either a rogue decision or there is more to it than meets the eye.

    Leave a comment:


  • westminster
    replied
    Originally posted by Worldlife View Post
    Where and how can we obtain more information about the case reported in my original post?
    The Civil Procedure Rules allow persons not party to the proceedings to obtain copies of court documents.
    http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/proc...5.htm#IDAMDI5B

    But that's not Criminal rules. I don't know anything about them, but here they are.
    http://www.justice.gov.uk/criminal/p.../rulesmenu.htm
    Part 16 looks as if it may be relevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Worldlife
    replied
    I have now heard from Hertsmere BC

    As there is an appeal pending in this matter and a number of other related cases yet to be heard, it would not be appropriate to comment at this stage.

    When all have become a matter of public record we would be happy to provide a summary of events.
    Is there a danger if nothing is done and Hertsmere obtain judgement in their favour that we have case law established that the Landlord becomes directly responsible for the misdemours of his/her tenant?

    Where and how can we obtain more information about the case reported in my original post?

    Wonder if the Watford Observer reporter was in Court - is that a line to follow?

    Would there be a legal eagle here willing to contact the landlord and offer the support she needs?

    PS Just wondered if the Council and Committee Minutes might provide insight - I'll ask

    Leave a comment:


  • bullybantam
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • davidjohnbutton
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • bullybantam
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • dominic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Worldlife
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Worldlife
    replied
    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/

    Leave a comment:


  • davidjohnbutton
    replied
    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!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Worldlife
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

  • Section 21 and deposit protection
    by Langanby
    I forgot to protect the deposit of a tenant within the 30 days limit. I then basically owned up to them and returned it via a bank transfer referencing that it was a deposit repayment. It was only £200. I have read conflicting things about whether I can issue a section 21 notice to evict. One group...
    17-09-2021, 19:20 PM
  • Proof that person has received section 21 eviction notice
    by Langanby
    I want to issue section 21 eviction notices to 3 tenants. I am concerned that 1 of the tenants may deny receiving the section 21 as they have been a bit awkward. I read online that the best way to prove this is to have a witness to them signing a document saying they have signed the section 21, but...
    17-09-2021, 19:18 PM
  • Section 21 issuing to evict tenants
    by Langanby
    I want to issue section 21 to my tenants to get my property back in January or February next year. My problem is that I am about to let a new tenant into the property, and I can't issue a section 21 in the first 4 months of a shorthold tenancy. I have another tenant who is 3 months into their tenancy...
    17-09-2021, 19:16 PM
  • Reply to Overseas Landlords
    by Santa Fe
    Boletus, thank you.
    17-09-2021, 18:37 PM
  • Overseas Landlords
    by Santa Fe
    I'm from UK but live overseas and recently discovered that I should be registered as an overseas landlord. I've done a bit of research on what it involves and it seems a bit of a headache - tenants have to fill out forms and pay tax from their rent direct to HMRC. If anyone here is registered as an...
    16-09-2021, 16:44 PM
  • Reply to Electrical Wiring Query
    by FindaLot
    Currys CFSEWH17. This model requires a 4mm cable minimum. There is no PAT test label. The LL was asked through the LA if they wanted to carry out a PAT, but after two times of asking, the answer was returned that no, they did not.
    17-09-2021, 18:14 PM
  • Electrical Wiring Query
    by FindaLot
    If an appliance has been wired in a wholly unsuitable manner that has been deemed "unsafe", thus making it a potential safety hazard, what particular regulations would be applicable? There appears to be some overlap here, such as the General Product Safety Regs, Electrical Equipment Safety...
    16-09-2021, 19:42 PM
  • Reply to Electrical Wiring Query
    by Neelix
    just give the forum the make and model…

    you could be saying I need to fuel my car but won’t say if it’s EV, petrol, diesel or hydrogen!

    and if this is a rental has it got a current PAT test label?...
    17-09-2021, 15:58 PM
  • Reply to Electrical Wiring Query
    by FindaLot
    It’s not a moulded plug, no.

    I do not require any further advice on the technicalities of the wiring. The information I have been provided by by trusted parties is satisfactory.

    What I am trying to ascertain is the regulations that would be applicable in this instance. Do...
    17-09-2021, 15:54 PM
  • Reply to Electrical Wiring Query
    by Neelix
    make and model of oven?

    or is your goal to get dubious advice off the internet to try and bash your LL over the head with

    and is this a moulded plug?...
    17-09-2021, 15:18 PM
Working...
X