LETTINGSlegal
iEvict T
repent at leisure
n haste,
£57,000 – the cost of an unlawful eviction. Flout the tenancy regulations at your peril, says Ian Larkins.
he residential sector has faced increasing regulation over recent years and now most aspects of a residential landlord’s relationship with his tenant are subject to certain procedures. Whilst the majority of landlords would never
dream of evicting a tenant without following the correct procedure, there remains a small minority who are unaware that they cannot just evict a tenant without running a huge financial risk, as a recent case has demonstrated. In the case of Hunt v Hussain (April 2010), Mr Hussain was
a freehold owner of premises. In May 2003, his wife granted an assured shorthold tenancy to Mr Hunt at a weekly rent of £90. However, Mr Hunt lost his job soon after his tenancy began and applied for housing benefit. Mrs Hussain then informed Mr Hunt he had to leave. Mrs Hussain ignored correspondence from Epsom and
Ewell’s Environmental Health Department warning her that she required a Court Order to evict Mr Hunt. She changed the locks and refused to reinstate Mr Hunt in the premises. For three months, 45-year-old Hunt stayed with friends on occasion but for most of the time slept in a broken-down car or where he could in his sleeping bag, until he secured alternative accommodation. Mr Hunt suffered from bronchial asthma
which was worsened by living rough and he developed depression with feelings of self-harm. Four years after the eviction, a psychiatrist determined that he was suffering from severe depression, agoraphobia and paranoid ideation and concluded that the trauma of the eviction
62 JUNE 2010 PROPERTYdrum
As the case of Hunt demonstrates, ignoring the correct eviction procedure can cost dearly and can spell the end of a landlord’s career.’
had generated this radical deterioration in his mental health. In addition, it was difficult to predict whether he would become fit to work in the future. The local authority prosecuted Mrs Hussain under
the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. She was fined £300 and ordered to pay costs of £250. In separate civil proceedings, Epsom County Court entered Judgment against Mr and Mrs Hussain on 31 July 2009. His Honour Judge Reid QC awarded damages
per day for 65 days. The Judge refused to assess damages over the full period of 76 days that Mr Hunt was homeless on the ground that Mr and Mrs Hussain
•
could have lawfully terminated the tenancy by serving a Housing Act 1988 Section 21 Notice.
totalling £56,678: The eviction – damages assessed at £120
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76