Slow Court System - Landlord Action Campaign

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

    Slow Court System - Landlord Action Campaign

    Dear Landlord,

    If you've had a problem tenant, you'll know:

    The slow court system doesn’t do landlords any favours.

    It can take up to six months to evict.

    Most landlords don’t receive any rent during this time.

    With the proposed County Court closures due to government cuts,
    the legal system may slow down even further.

    We are campaigning to.....

    1. Seek changes to the law to speed up the eviction process
    2. Improve landlords rights of access
    3. Ensure that any closures of UK County Courts does not negatively affect landlords.

    Our campaign is backed by:

    - Mike Weatherley MP
    - The Residential Landlords Association (RLA)
    - The Southern Landlords Association (SLA)
    - Tom Entwistle, LandlordZONE

    Please sign the petition

    As landlords, we are stronger together.

    Kind regards,

    Campaigns Team
    Landlord Action

    #2
    Please explain exactly what changes you propose in order to achieve the ends you outline above.
    'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

    Comment


      #3
      THE PETITION
      We the undersigned wish to:
      (i) highlight the difficulties experienced by responsible landlords when faced with unscrupulous tenants,
      (ii) seek changes to the law to speed up the eviction process when a clear case of either non-payment of rent or anti-social behaviour exists,
      (iii) seek changes to the law to improve a landlord's rights of access to their own property in the case of, again, non-payment of rent or anti-social behaviour,
      (iv) Seek commitment from the government that proposed closures of UK County Courts will not contribute towards any delays in landlords obtaining possession of their property.
      I really don't see how (iv) could be achieved. Closures will inevitably increase delays for everyone using the court service. Why not research and propose a workable idea which would speed up the process, rather than just ask for a probably unachievable commitment? For example, a change in law enabling, say, barristers (many of whom are under-employed) to handle straightforward possession claims (no idea whether this is legally possible, but just an example of an alternative approach).

      Re (ii); while there will often be a 'clear case' of unpaid rent, I doubt that anti-social behaviour (a discretionary ground) is ever quite so easy to prove. It would be better to focus on the more commonplace and easy-to-prove issue of unpaid rent, than muddy the objective by including anti-social behaviour.

      Re (iii); how is unpaid rent relevant to the issue of LL's rights of access? LL already has an implied right of access for repairs under s.16 HA1988. You can't eliminate T's common law right to quiet enjoyment, so there will always be competing rights in this respect. I agree things could perhaps be improved, but it would have to be very carefully thought through in order not to provide leeway to bad LLs or infringe on T's rights.

      Comment


        #4
        LLs do themselves no favours sometimes do they? I agree that the court process for non-payment is too slow. However "improve rights of access" - does this mean allow LLs to tramp into people's homes whenever they like? A bad LLs charter methinks!
        Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

        Comment


          #5
          Maybe all the judges that are going to lose their courtrooms could be converted into bailiffs. That should knock a few weeks off the possession procedure.
          I offer no guarantee that anything I say is correct. wysiwyg

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by LandlordZONE View Post
            Dear Landlord,

            If you've had a problem tenant, you'll know:

            The slow court system doesn’t do landlords any favours.

            It can take up to six months to evict.

            Most landlords don’t receive any rent during this time.

            With the proposed County Court closures due to government cuts,
            the legal system may slow down even further.

            We are campaigning to.....

            1. Seek changes to the law to speed up the eviction process
            2. Improve landlords rights of access
            3. Ensure that any closures of UK County Courts does not negatively affect landlords.

            Our campaign is backed by:

            - Mike Weatherley MP
            - The Residential Landlords Association (RLA)
            - The Southern Landlords Association (SLA)
            - Tom Entwistle, LandlordZONE

            Please sign the petition

            As landlords, we are stronger together.

            Kind regards,

            Campaigns Team
            Landlord Action
            Mike Weatherley is Suzy Butler's MP. There is no doubt that his championing of this is influenced by his involvement in that awful episode.

            Comment


              #7
              I've linked to a brief exchange between Mike Weatherley and John Cruddas during the Unscrupulous Landlords debate on 8/9/2010.

              Weatherley's question.

              Cruddas' reply.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by LandlordZONE View Post
                2. Improve landlords rights of access



                Please sign the petition
                .....No.....

                Comment


                  #9
                  I doubt that at a time when people are going to see benefits reduced, services cut, and jobs lost the government will be happy to be seen taking steps to speed up evictions.
                  I also post as Moderator2 when moderating

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                    However "improve rights of access" - does this mean allow LLs to tramp into people's homes whenever they like? A bad LLs charter methinks!
                    Why not wait for an answer before taking a view on what it means?

                    LLs access is often thwarted by tenants spurious rights and whims

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Read.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by HairyLandlord View Post
                        Why not wait for an answer before taking a view on what it means?

                        LLs access is often thwarted by tenants spurious rights and whims
                        We have been asked to sign a petition on the details supplied, so we are entitled to make judgement on the details supplied.

                        If the petition had restricted itself to the slow court issue I expect a near unanimous agreement would of been achieved.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          To speed up the process for the landlord.

                          1) From when the s21 and s8 expires, the T is liable for double the rent until they leave the P, if upheld by the court.

                          Reasons for 1,
                          Because at present there is little downside to the T, not surrendering up the P, and that the T normally has agreed in the contract, that he would leave if the LL, gives him 2 months notice, so it just encouraging the T to do what he agreed to do.
                          And for the S8, he also has broken the agreement, so why shouldn't he pay the LL double, if it is upheld by the court.


                          2) From the date the papers are registered with the court, till the procession order is grant, the government/courts pay the rent, if upheld.

                          Reason for 2,
                          The LL wouldn't be out pocket and would encourage the courts/government to speed up the process, as it no longer any benefit for the government to slow down the process.

                          The above will never happen as the government/courts would have to pay the LL money, and find a lot more social houses and why would they want to do that when a private LL can house them for nothing for a few months.

                          And of course people can abuse the system like the current one, but I think the above ideas have some merit, but maybe not the whole answer, like maybe a penalty for LL who bring false allegations.
                          Disclaimer: What I say is either right or wrong. It may be advisable to check what I say with a solicitor. If he says I am right then I am right, unless he is wrong in which case I am wrong; but if he says I am wrong then I am wrong, unless he is wrong in which case I am right

                          Comment


                            #14
                            General question:
                            LZ ought to be seen as impartial. Ought it ever to be involved in campaigning at all; might not this be seen as too pro-L or pro-T?
                            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


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Roy_Solomon View Post
                              We have been asked to sign a petition on the details supplied, so we are entitled to make judgement on the details supplied.

                              If the petition had restricted itself to the slow court issue I expect a near unanimous agreement would of been achieved.
                              I was responding to a reply about access, not to what the OP originally posted.
                              I would have thought that was obvious by my quoting the other respondent.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X