Tessa’s Travels – writings on Wordpress

Some of you may have noticed that from time to time I go ‘off topic’. This is because I like writing and do not always want to confine myself to strictly legal matters. However I have decided to hive off some of my more creative writing into a new site, which I have called Tessa’s Travels. This will contain all my writings about trips, holidays and visits to places interesting.

I decided to try a new blog platform for the new blog and have used Wordpress. This is fairly easy to use (particuarly if you have used Blogger before) and there are some very nice templates. I have used ‘Connections’ by Patricia Miller. This allows me to customise the header and has a nice (albeit fairly limited) collection of widgets.

So far using Wordpress seems to be pretty similar to Blogger but I must say that I am impressed with the Wordpress facilities for updating pictures (or media as they call it). I can decide where to put the pictures in the post (in Blogger I have to manualy move them), and there is a facility for me to put a caption and description. I have been putting cropped versions of my digital pictures into my blog for years, but the facilities offered by Wordpress allow me to make them more of a feature in the blog post. Which is very relevant for a travel blog! Although when I say travel, I suspect that most of our wanderings will be in Norfolk for the time being.

So from now on all travel type posts will be on Tessa’s Travels. However I still reserve the right to go off topic here in other respects. This is after all, my blog!

Out of season holiday lets

I did some work for a client today who runs a couple of holiday homes in a converted barn near her country home. She sometimes lets these out on short term lets out of season but is now regretting it, or at least the most recent let. This was to a lady who, having moved in on the understanding that she would have to go in May when the holiday makers start coming, has now decided that she is going to stay on, as indeed is her right technically. Which puts my client in a difficult position.

So my lady came to me to draft up a section 21 notice, which has been done and which will be served on the tenant tomorrow. But it is looking increasingly unlikely that she will move out much before the autumn, so my client is in problems with her holiday customers, some of whom booked up to stay in the holiday cottages over a year ago. She is hoping that they do not sue.

It is very difficult to get over to clients sometimes the difficulty of getting tenants out. "Oh, I told her she could only stay until April" I hear them say about their tenants. But telling them this is meaningless if the tenant is determined to stay, and has the legal right to do so. And a letter politely asking them to leave in 14 days when the holiday makers arrive is almost worse than useless. Any request to a tenant to vacate when their rights have not been followed (i.e. the right to have a proper form of possession notice served on them first) can technically be harassment, which is a criminal offence.

If you have a holiday cottage, it is always a risk letting it to a tenant on an out of season holiday let. If you only let to holiday makers you have the right to move them out at the end of their holiday period without going to court, as holiday lets are one of the exceptions under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. However if your residential tenant refuses to go, you have to get a court order, and by the time this has been done, even using the so called 'accelerated procedure' the holiday period could be almost over and you will have a lot of disgruntled customers.

In an effort to help things, I have now prepared a special out of season holiday let form, for members of my Landlord-Law service (to be found in my student lets section, as this sort of arrangement often works best with students who do not want to stay in the property over the summer anyway). The agreement specifically states that the property is let as a holiday home at other times of the year and provides for the rent, if the tenant stays on after the end of the fixed term, to go up to the holiday rent rate. This should hopefully discourage tenants from staying on.

Energy efficiency in existing buildings - a new report highlights problems

A new report out from the Economic and Social Research Council and Technology Strategy Board makes interesting reading.

The report states that some 27% of emissions come from domestic buildings - twice the emissions of commercial and public buildings and five times that of industrial buildings.

According to Professor Kevin Lomas, University of Loughborough, virtually all the 24 million existing buildings in the UK would need some attention to reduce their emissions by just 40 per cent. 'To complete the task in 40 years we would need to refurbish an entire city the size of Cambridge every month. If we assume that each intervention would take a team of trained workers two weeks, we would need 23,000 teams of people to work at this rate non-stop for the next 500 months,' he warns.

A long job. Particularly as, it appears, energy saving devices do not always save energy. The report goes on to say that ‘occupants of buildings do not always understand or use these devices in the way their designers intended’.

Oh dear! We obviously have a long way to go!

A new landlord scam

A new landlord scam has been highlighted on the Directgov web-site.

Tenants answering ads on web-sites such as Gumtree, fish4 of Craig's List are being asked to 'prove that they have enough money' by transferring money to a friend or relative.

They are then asked to send a scanned copy of the transaction receipt to the 'landlord' as proof that they have enough money to rent the property. However, the receipt contains enough information for the criminals to collect the money first.

So if you or someone you know is thinking of renting property, watch out for this.

You can read more here.

The National Trust - Charity of the month (April 2009)

Over Easter we have enjoyed two visits to National Trust properties - The Elizabethan House in Great Yarmouth, and Ickworth House in Suffolk. We did not have to pay a penny to visit either of them, as we have a family membership. We tend to holiday in England and whereever we go there are always fabulous places to visit, courtesy of the National Trust.

The National Trust do wonderful work preserving our heritage and countryside, we are very fortunate to have them. It is important that they are supported, so I would urge all of you who are not already members to join up. And you will then have all these wonderful places to go to! The more you visit, the more cost effective your membership will be.

Click here to read about and join the National Trust.

Increased use of set-off by banks

Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk.

***

I am obliged to Sally Chicken to referring me to a blog entry by Martin Lewis of moneysavingexpert.com on banks right of set off. It seems that the banks have the power to transfer money from savings accounts (if they are held by the same organisation) to pay off money due to them by the account holder elsewhere, for example for credit cards or loans. The bank is unlikely to let you know that they are going to do this, to prevent you from moving the money, so it could hit you at any time (although banks are unlikely to do this save as a last resort). However sudden unexpected transfers can cause enormous trouble for the account holder.

It looks as if banks are now doing this more, the Citizens Advice Bureau apparently have seen a 25% increase in this happening.

Probably the answer is to make sure that you keep your savings entirely separately from your main accounts. Although as so many banks and building societies own each other nowadays this may be easier said than done. If you are not sure about this, consider using a Credit Union.

Mr Lewis also points out that if the transfer results in cheques or other payments not being met, this could result in your incurring bank charges (i.e. the bank who caused the problem might be profiting from it!). Which is very unfair. Maybe if this happens to you, a complaint could be made to the Office of Fair Trading?

You can read Martin Lewis’ blog item in full here.

BlogNor09 : A day out in Great Yarmouth

Our son Patrick is on holiday from school, so we decided to take a day off from work and visit Great Yarmouth. I have always been a bit negative about Great Yarmouth, my memories being mainly made up of the depressing building which formerly housed the Great Yarmouth County Court (now closed), and the seaside Pleasure Beach and amusement complex, which is not really my thing.

However I had heard that there was another side to Great Yarmouth so we decided to hunt it out. Following guidance given from helpful leaflets on the railway station we made our way to the historic South Quay where we found the charming Elizabethan House Museum, owned by the National Trust. It is apparently famous as the place where the execution of King Charles 1 was plotted, but leaving that aside, it is the most delightful place and despite being a museum has a very homely feel to it. In fact it is the sort of house I would love to live in, and over lunch (in a very nice local bistro) we worked out what we would do in the various rooms, were it ours.

After lunch we strolled further down and found two delightful houses maintained by English Heritage called the Row Houses. They are where those working in the herring industry used to stay, for example the ‘girls’ who came down from Scotland to clean the fish before processing. The houses were nice if a bit empty of furniture. Looking out of the window it was good to see a gang of kids playing in the street, probably exactly the same as the kids who lived in the museum houses.



The last place we went to was the truly extraordinary Great Yarmouth Pottery. This building, built largely of old scraps from ships, and with a fresh water well in the main room, was once a herring smokehouse and after about 70 years you can still smell the fish. However the building is now a museum and working pottery, filled with the genius of Ernie Childs the potter and artist. You see not only the place where he works together with work in progress (and get a lesson on how they create their mugs) but also an amazing collection of artifacts of marine and fishing life, plus you can watch a short film on the history of the herring industry, while sitting on benches made from the herring girls trunks. Upstairs there is a small cafe (with toilets wallpapered with out of date nautical charts) and large shop where there is a wonderful selection of mugs, ornaments, china clocks, pottery crab dishes, and all sorts of other items, all made by Ernie in his kiln. We bought three mugs to remember it by.

So back to the grindstone tomorrow, but it has been good taking a day out, and I will think differently of Great Yarmouth in future.

OFT preliminary success in Foxtons unfair terms case

As many of you may know, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is involved in litigation with Foxtons Ltd (the letting agents) regarding Foxtons’ refusal to agree that certain terms in their agency contracts with landlords are unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR).

One side issue in the litigation was whether any injunction brought against Foxtons could affect current contracts as well as future ones. The Judge at first instance accepted Foxtons’ argument that any injunction in respect of unfair terms could only apply to future contracts.

However today the Court of Appeal overturned this ruling, confirming the OFT's long-held view that it can take enforcement action under the UTCCRs to protect consumers in relation to both existing and future contracts. The Court of Appeal stated that the UTCCRs aim was to protect consumers, and that they were of the view that traders should not have the freedom to pursue existing customers without restriction, in correspondence or by litigation, in order to enforce contractual terms that have been found to be unfair.

So if you are a landlord with an agency contract with Foxtons, they should not now levy any charges under the disputed clauses on you until after the main action has been heard. This is presumably not going to do Foxtons’ cash flow a lot of good.

The main action, i.e. on whether the terms in question are actually unfair or not under the regs will be dealt with by the High Court in the week commencing 27 April.

To read more, click here.

Complaints against the DPS - the governments response

There has been quite a bit of discussion below about problems a few landlords have had with arbitration's carried out for the DPS, in particular relating to evidence not being passed over to the adjudicator. One of my landlord members had a similar problem, and she wrote to the Department of Communities and Local Government to complain. She has provided me with a copy of the letter and authorised me to reproduce part of it on this blog, as it may be of interest. The relevant parts read as follows:

"I am sorry that you are not happy with the way the DPS handled your complaint. The Tenancy Deposit protection measures introduced in the Housing Act 2004 are designed to safeguard the interests of both landlords and tenants, ensuring good practice in deposit handling, so that when a tenant pays a deposit and is entitled to get it back, he or she can be assured that this will happen. As you are aware, each scheme offers a free alternative dispute resolution service (ADR) to deal with disputes over the return of the deposit. It is also open to the landlord or tenant to choose to have the dispute dealt with through the Courts. Where both the landlord and tenant agree to using the ADR service the decision made by the adjudicator is binding and there is no right of appeal.

I should explain that the DPS is a government authorised scheme but is not run by the government. We are not able to deal with formal complaints at Communities and Local Government, although we monitor the scheme closely and are always interested to hear if particular issues arise. Each provider submits Key Performance indicators to the Department every month showing how they are performing against targets, and penalties are imposed for poor performance. Regular meetings are also held with each of the scheme providers to discuss the type of performance related issues you have raised.

We are satisfied that the DPS takes any complaints very seriously and will investigate thoroughly through their formal complaints procedure."

It may be therefore that if you have a ‘performance related issue’ in connection with an arbitration, a letter to the Department of Communities and Local Government may help to resolve it for future users, although it will not help with your own case.

HMO landlords water rates shock

Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk.

***

A long standing Landlord-Law member has written to me informing me of a potential problem for HMO landlords with water rates. He tells me that

"I recently had a revised water bill from Thames Water back-dated six-years totalling nearly £8.000 for an eight-studio HMO that I own. Previously, I had paid the water rates based on the rateable value of the building (£circa £450.00 pa) as there is only one water supply that enters the property. I'm not sure whether there has been a change of law, but Thames Water (and, I believe, other water companies) are now billing each studio separately. Since I do not have a meter on the property, they have based the charge on the average water consumption of other (separately rateable) studios in the area. Since my studios are almost certainly a lot smaller and have single occupancy, I am planning on having a water meter installed as soon as possible."

Fortunately my informant managed to get the invoice changed so it was only backdated to October 2008, however he wanted me to know the situation so I could warn other HMO landlords of the possible shock in store for them.

Tenants - the forgotten victims of repossession

Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk.

***

I was delighted to read a report that a campaign is being launched to help tenants who get evicted through no fault of their own, because their buy-to-let landlords have not kept up their mortgage payments. You can read more about it on the Citizens Advice Bureau site here.

Long term LandlordLaw Blog readers may remember several cases reported here in the past, in particular the distressing case of two tenants whose landlord rented their property to them after the possession order had been made, which you can read here.

Although in many cases the reason the landlord is unable to pay his mortgage is becuase the tenant has failed to pay his rent, there are many situations where this is not the case, and where the tenants are entirely innocent.

At present the court have limited powers to protect innocent tenants. The organisations are calling for a change in the law which would mean courts would have the power to defer the possession to allow the tenant to find other suitable accommodation. This is only fair.

If you agree with this, I would suggest you contact your MP and ask him/her to support the campaign. You can do this via the Write to Your MP web-site.

In the meantime here is some advice for tenants:

- Always open mail addressed 'To the Occupier'. This may include notice of any possession hearings.
- If you're thinking of moving into a new property, make sure the landlord has permission from the lender to rent it out. Otherwise, the lender does not have to recognise the tenancy at all.
- If you were already living in the premises at the time when the mortgage was taken out, the lender may take you on as a tenant and allow you to pay rent to them directly. If you think you may be in this position, contact a Citizens Advice Bureau or Shelter.
- Try to find out as much you can about your prospective landlord and his/her mortgage status before taking up a tenancy - although in practice this isn't always very easy.

Datchelor reunion

Had a brilliant re-union with old school friends on Saturday, hosted by Suzanne at the fabulous Teatro Club in Shaftsbury Avenue. So nice to see people again after such a long time.

Also of course fond memories of those high fashion garments we so loved to wear...

Essential Legal Points for Landlords talk at the Landlord&Buy-to-Let Show

It was very nice to see people at the Landlord&Buy-to-Let Show on Friday. Thank you to everyone who attended, it was great to see so many of you there, and I am sorry some of you had to stand. I am also sorry that the noise of the conference was a bit intrusive - I hope you all managed to hear me.

I have now sent off to everyone who asked, a pdf of my powerpoint and added those who asked to go on my newsletter (note if you forgot to ask you can do this here). There were inevitably a few where I could not read the handwriting and there were bouncebacks, so if you did not receive your copy please do email and I will send it out (and to anyone else who wants it).

Liability of 'let only' agents for the deposit under the TDPS

I have been meaning to comment on the post on the Pain Smith blog recently on tenancy deposits and 'let only' agents. However Francis Davey on the Nearly Legal blog has beaten me to it.

It only remains therefore for me to refer you to the original posting by Pain Smith, and the subsequent posting on Nearly Legal.

As I said in my comment on the Nearly Legal blog, my view has always been that an agent is responsible for ensuring that the deposit is dealt with properly if the deposit is paid to him (irrespective of whether he is acting on a let only basis or a management basis). The fact that the deposit was passed on to the landlord is no defence.

I would advise all agents to either protect the deposit themselves or only pass it over to the Landlord if they are really certain that it will be protected. Or of course they could ask the tenant to pay the deposit direct to the landlord.

It will be interesting to see what conclusion the court come to. Keep us informed David!

takeITon seminar

I attended an excellent seminar yesterday, which was provided free of charge by takeITon, a company offering free business IT support and advice to businesses in the East of England.

I sat next to Penny Lindop who designs cards and stantionary and who also runs a blog. She sells to shops but also sells online so do take a look at her website.

I also met Sally Clearly who is setting up an exciting new online community The Virtual Business Club. Sally is a very experienced marketeer and she told me that the club will have lots of new features to help members spot the Next Big Thing. She is offering a free years membership to the first 500 members (so she can populate the site) so I would suggest you get there quick!

Well thats enough blogging, I now have to review all my metatagsa and site links and implement a few google adwords!

More bonkers Legal Services Commission rules

I had a conversation recently with a worker at a legal 'not for profit' organisation (who wishes to remain anonymous) who is in despair about their Housing Court Desk Duty Scheme. She had been using student volunteers in addition to the qualified helpers. The student volunteers were all law students from a local college. They were really enthusiastic, worked hard, and the scheme was going well. However she has now been told that, for schemes funded by the LSC, all advisors must either be qualified solicitors or be doing 12 hours per week housing law case work. So she can’t use the students any more.

I assume that the LSC have made this stipulation so that they can assure 'quality'. However the effect of this is to make the scheme very difficult to run. Although they are generally willing to help, in the present financial climate local solicitors will need to spend most of their time on fee earning work, to enable their firm to stay solvent. They are not going to have a lot of free time available for voluntary work, bearing in mind that there are very few solicitors nowadays who specialise in this area of work anyway.

It is ridiculous to say that only solicitors and those carrying heavy housing law caseloads can give advice to people facing repossession. With proper training, anyone sensible who understand the legal system can do it. I would have thought that law students were eminently suitable for this work, plus it will enable them to gain experience which will help them in their careers, and may even encourage them to specialise in the area of housing and welfare work in the future.

It reminds me of when I used to do volunteer work for a local legal charity. I was donating my time entirely free of charge but the Legal Services Commission's expectations were wholly unreasonable. For example they demanded that I physically attend the office for a certain amount of time each week (which would take up more time that I was able to give, bearing in mind that I also needed to earn a living) whether this was actually needed or not. This is one of the main reasons why I resigned.

It seems that not only have the LSC virtually destroyed the network of legal aid solicitors that previously existed, they are also (still) making life difficult for volunteer services.

Red Nose Avatars - only £1

If you are on facebook, myspace, twitter etc, do go and get yourself a red nose for your avatar for Comic Relief (our Charity of the Month). It is only £1. Plus there are three fantastic red noses to choose from. You get them at www.digitalrednose.com.

The tweetometer

As you will know from my previous posts and from the side bar of this blog, I am a twitterer. One of the twitterers I follow is TweetMinster who tweet about MPs on twitter.

They have now developed this really cool app called a tweetometer. You can see it in my sidebar. Two words go in the two boxes at the top and when you click go it works out which is the most popular on twitter that day.

The example given on the TweetMinster site is Gordon Brown and David Cameron. However you can put anything. I have put as my default, landlord and tenant (although I expect I will change this from time to time). But, you can click into the tweetometer and type your own words. I just checked out Dalek and Cyberman (Dalek won as you would expect).

TweetMinster is also a very good and serious service facilitating communication between MPs and their constituents, and worth checking out.

Comic Relief - Charity of the month (March 2009)

With Red Nose Day this coming Friday (13th - hopefully unlucky for none) it would be difficult to choose any charity other than Comic Relief for this months Charity of the Month. We are not doing anything particularly silly here (apart from the usual) but will be donating on the day. They promise that every pound raised from the public will go to good causes.

Follow the links for more information on Red Nose Day and to donate.

Complaints about the DPS

Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk.

Despite the comments made in my previous post on complaints about the DPS, I have received a few further emails and blog comments outlining further problems with the DPS service. In one of my comments to this post, I mention the complaints procedure which is referred to in the FAQ on the DPS web-site.

However my DPS contact has drawn my attention to the fact that this complaints procedure cannot be used in respect of the arbitration process itself. Some of the problems that people have contacted me about have been regarding the arbitration decision, in particular evidence not being passed on to the arbitrator. My DPS contact told me

"The complaints process does not apply to the ADR decision these are binding on both parties and there is no appeal process. They are made aware of this when they accept the Terms and Conditions. If we receive a complaint about the decision we do check to make sure all the evidence has been included. Often when a case is lost and the decision has been received citing lack of evidence, we receive a claim saying the evidence was sent - there will always be one unhappy party in every case.

The complaints process can be used to complain about the service they have received but not to appeal any ADR decision."

It is an important aspect of the arbitration process that decisions must be accepted as final by both parties. This prevents the process becoming long winded and allows people to move on.

However I can understand the indignation of a landlord or tenant who finds that his case has clearly been decided wrongly. If the decision is one which no reasonable arbitrator could have come to, is it right that it should be allowed to stand? But then on the other hand, how do we know that this is that one in a thousand case which really has been decided wholly unreasonably? Almost every losing party in a case considers that his case was wrongly decided! If one appeal or case re-hearing is allowed, then everyone will want it, and the advantage of the finality of arbitration will be lost.

I think probably the answer is that if the decision does not go your way, there is not much you can do about it, at least as far as changing the decision is concerned. In life one does sometimes come across injustices which we just have to put up with. You just have to do your best to make sure it does not happen again.

However I would suggest that you do at least write and complain about it, and tell the DPS exactly what happened. If a large number of complaints are received on a particular topic this may prompt a change of procedure which could prevent the same problem happening again.

Does anyone else have any ideas or comments on this? Also, the complaints I have received have also been about the DPS service - are people happy with the service from the other two providers?

Mary Datchelor Girls School

If you were at Mary Datchelor in the year that did its A levels in 1975 (particuarly if you were in Miss Traize class in the fifth year) can you get in touch, as a reunion is planned for 21 March 2009.

It looks as if the building has now been re-developed into flats - here are some depressing images.

Gas Regs change

I am obliged to the Pain Smith blog for letting me know me about a forthcoming change in the Gas Regs, which will come into effect on 1 April. From then on, gas inspections need to be done by installers registered with the Gas Safe Register operated by Capita. This is because CORGIs contract with the HSE has come to an end.

You will find a leaflet about it here.

Talk to CNS

I did a talk to the sixth form at my son's school today, CNS (City of Norwich School). The main points I wanted to get over were that they should be careful about rushing into renting a property, and that they should be careful who they choose to rent with. And of course that they have rights and should take advice if they are worried about something.

Some of them seemed to be listening although there was the inevitable undercurrent of muttering and rustling at the back (it was a large roomful). There was one intelligent question and a boy at the front taking notes, so hopefully some of the points will stick with them at least. And really that is all that is needed. To hear something and have it at the back of your mind, so that if one day you have a problem, you will think 'Didn't that woman who spoke to us at school say something about that? Lets look it up.'

It is an exciting time of life, your last year at school, with all of your life in the 'real world' ahead of you. If you were there, I do wish you all the very best.

Twitter Tips

Reading an article about twitter this morning, I suddenly thought ‘Why not have some special tips accounts? One for landlords and one for tenants?’

Well, not being one to mess about (particularly where there is a free marketing opportunity), I have now set these up. Every week, on a Wednesday afternoon, tips will be posted:

For landlords to : http://twitter.com/LandlordsTips

For tenants to : http://twitter.com/TenantsTips

If you have a web-site or blog, particularly if it is about property, you can also add a feed for either (or both!) to your site. This will give your site some extra content which will be updated weekly, and will also help me. It would be nice if you could let me know if you do this.

In point of fact I have already written quite a few of the tips (up to the end of April actually) and they are going to be drip fed into the sites by a great application I have discovered called Tweetlater.

I have never really caught on to facebook and myspace, but I have to say that twitter is great!

More on drug factories in rented properties

Further to my earlier post on this topic, I have spotted an interesting item on the BBC News web-site. This gives more information about the signs to spot a cannabis factory, and is well worth reading, plus there is an informative video.

Generally though landlords need to do regular inspections, and if a tenant consistently refuses to allow access, this should alert you to the possibility of criminal activity. If you just ignore the signs, you may have problems claiming for any damage later, on your insurance.

Also, if you are a landlord, it might be an idea now, to check to see whether this sort of thing would be covered on your current policy.

Advance rent = deposit??

Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk.

***

There is a report of a new tenancy deposit case on the Nearly Legal website. Although this is a County Court decision and therefore cannot bind Judges in future cases, it is interesting, and may be worrying for many landlords.

It appears that in this case there was a dispute as to whether the deposit money was actually a deposit or ‘future rent’ as alleged by the landlord. The Judge decided that the regulations say that any money paid (although in this case it was money from a former deposit paid to the same landlord in respect of a previous property) will be deemed to be paid as security, and therefore will be covered by the tenancy deposit regulations.

Many landlords have sought to evade the tenancy deposit regulations by taking two months rent in advance instead of one month in advance and a deposit. This case implies that this strategy may be more risky than has previously been thought, as if the Judge finds that in fact the payment was a deposit, the landlord will be liable for the penalty ‘fine’ of three times the deposit amount.

For more information about this case, read the Nearly Legal Report.

Legal Services Commission is arrogant and devious says former supervising solicitor

Although it is not directly related to housing law, I feel I ought to draw readers attention to an excellent comment in the Law Society Gazette from Michael Burdett who previously helped the Legal Services Commission (LSC) to set up the CDS (i.e. Criminal Defence Service) direct scheme.

As someone who has worked with the LSC he ought to know something about them. His view is that the savings claimed for the expanded CDS Direct scheme are misrepresented and that the LSC have failed to answer his request for a breakdown of how they have been calculated. He goes on to say that the expanded CDS is probably of questionable legality, that the ‘hypocritical and bureaucratic attitude’ shown by the LSC in this is being replicated elsewhere, and that their ‘arrogant and devious approach’ towards reform of both civil and criminal legal aid has destroyed the goodwill of the profession.

This is all so sad. In the 1940s when legal aid was first set up, it was conceived as a twin service to the National Health Service. So people of modest means would have access to both medical and legal help. When I first started work as a lawyer all firms did legal aid, even the very large ones. Now hardly anyone does. When tenants on benefit ring me up asking for representation, it is very difficult to think of anywhere I can refer them other than our local Shelter office.

As Michael Burdett says in his article, it is worrying that people’s right to legal help is being circumscribed at a time when the police and the state are being given unprecedented powers over the citizen.

We are told that all this is in the interests of the taxpayer as it will cost less. But this just reflects my blog item below – things being valued solely on the basis of how much they cost. And is a miniscule reduction in our tax really an adequate compensation for being unable to receive independent legal help if we are unjustly detained by the police? As others have pointed out, compared to the National Health Service budget and defence costs, the Legal Aid Budget is miniscule.

It is all very worrying.

Looking at things the right way

Reading the Sunday papers, in an excellent article on various women’s comments on the current crisis and whether it was fuelled mainly by male gung ho testosterone driven attitudes (very probably in my view), I was struck by a comment made by Emma Howard Boyd:

I have spent a lot of time thinking about how you value things socially and environmentally. If you value things purely from a financial perspective then you possibly end up with the wrong type of metrics. Look at some of the happiness data. How do you measure people's general welfare? Looking at purely monetary data is not the right way to do it.

I have long thought this. Our world today often seems to be driven purely by money, and that is the standard by which we are all judged. But I know that many people find this distasteful, quite rightly.

I can remember, during the recent heady years of property investment, I was invited to go to a property evening event in London (I had better not say which one it was!). The speakers and their soundbite talks were all quite blatently driven by greed. This was epitomised for me by one of the speakers making some sort of offer, saying those returning a completed form first would receive an offer or inventive and a young man jumping up and running, running down the room so he could get his form in first. They were certainly were not interested in what I had to say about landlords responsibilities (no money to be made there!). Although some of the people there were quite nice, I found whole ethos of the event repellent, and it quite turned me off the whole property investment thing, and attending any other such events. I remember I took great pleasure in advising a young Australian there (I think he was a driver for one of the delegates) on his problems with his landlord.

The valuation thing can perhaps be illustarted by our new wood stove (which I wrote about here). From a purely financial point of view, it has not perhaps been a huge success. We have had to buy rather a lot of wood and it has been a bit more than we expected. However from all other viewpoints it has been brilliant. Our living room is warm and friendly, and we love looking after and caring for our fire. I often just sit and watch the flames, which I am sure must be great therepy. We buy all our wood locally from sustainable sources, and are thus helping to save the planet. By what standard should it be judged?

Perhaps we should try to live our lives more by non financial values. Had more bankers done that in the past, we would not be where we are now.

Tessa on the Radio with Graham and Karen

I did my radio bit today with Graham and Karen on Radio Norfolk, and it was great! Not like work at all. I think I now want to be a radio presenter when I grow up.

Radio Norfolk is based in Norwich’s Forum building, which also houses the main public library. There is also an exhibition space on the ground floor where they sometimes have concerts and other events, and which currently houses four (I think it is four) fabulous dragons made by children at local schools - well worth a visit if you are in Norwich.

The radio studios are upstairs, there are two of them, so they can switch seamlessly from one to the other. (And also, I was told, so they can keep on going if one breaks down!) I was fascinated to see how it all worked as I have never been in a radio studio before (my previous radio experience was by telephone).

I suppose I was with Karen and Graham for about 1/2 hour? Not sure exactly. We chatted about silly things (mainly school playground games based on an article in the local paper) and I did a bit of talk about landlord and tenant stuff. Of course you can only scratch the surface in that time, there is so much to say, but I did my best. They seemed to think it was OK anyway. I only lost it once.

I thoroughly enjoyed doing the show, party because Graham and Karen are so nice, and partly because it was such fun being silly on the radio. They did say they might have me back one day, which would be brilliant if it happened. I’ll let you know if I do.

Unlock Democracy - Charity of the Month (February 2009)

On my Landlord-Law site I have a book reviews section, and from time to time I get sent books to review. Generally they are landlord and tenant related, but I was quite excited, some time before Christmas, to receive a copy of Unlocking Democracy.

I am ashamed to say that I was completely unaware of the Charter 88 organisation which preceded Unlock Democracy, a cross party organisation set up to campaign for democratic and human rights. However it is certainly something of which I approve.

I decided that this was a book I was going to read in some detail before doing my review. I did actually read quite a lot before it got buried in the pile of things to do. That detailed review never did get written. However instead I am making Unlock Democracy my February Charity of the Month.

If you are at all interested in democracy and human rights, I would suggest that you buy the book, and sign up to the web-site. Because however good a political party sound when in opposition, as soon as they are elected they become ‘the government’. And it is not normally in 'the government's' interest to give power to the people, unless forced to do so. However well meaning they may be.

We need organisations like Unlock Democracy to watch out for our interests and tell us when our rights are about to be eroded. If we agree, we can then mobilise the power of the internet, to make our views known by emails to MPs and the press, arranging protest meetings, and signing online petitions. This is the new democracy. Use it!

Two talks - a day in London

Had a reasonably pleasant day in London today, although I never enjoy rising at 5.00 am. I also had the embarrassment of having to ask the taxi man to return twice, once for my watch and the second time for my railway ticket (!). Still he was a cheery chap and didn’t seem to mind too much.

The scenery on the train down was rather beautiful, especially the bit between Ipswich and Manningtree - creeks and rivers under a haze of low lying mist and snow, with the sun just rising above. Lovely.

Arriving in London, I walked, as usual, to my lecturing venue, which was by the Pru building on Holborn. Just the thing to wake you up, and I dislike traveling by underground. I don't go to London that much so it is nice to see it - it was positively sparkling in the sunlight today. And St Pauls must be the most beautiful thing in the City - I took a picture of it just for you!

Of course after rising at 5.00, a two hour train journey, and a walk across half London, what you really need is bacon, fried eggs and a cup of tea - a nearby greek cafe obliged for a very modest £3.50.

The CLT talk went more or less as normal. I have been speaking at this particular conference for several years now, and it is always nice to see the other speakers again.

However the Legal IT Show was a bit of a damp squib. Not that many people present and hardly anyone at my talk. I suspect the recent snow had something to do with it. Never mind, thats life! I attended a couple of the other talks which were very interesting and had a look at some of the stands.

But it is really nice to be back home again! There’s no place like it. A quiet day tomorrow I think.

Radio calling!

Funny I should have written about radio last night. Because today a nice man from Radio Norfolk rang up and asked me to go on his program next week. Next Wednesday in fact, fact fans, 10.00 to 1.00, with Graham and Karen. For a program on renting property.

Of course, as is the way of things, when he rang I was in the middle of having a new printer installed, and our talk was punctuated by the creaking and grinding noises of a printer being set up and tested. So I probably did not sound as intelligent as (of course) I really am. Well thats my excuse anyway.

So if you are at a loose end next Wednesday, why not tune in and see how I do? He promised that they would not do a Jeremy Paxman on me, so hopefully I won’t be gibbering with fear. It looks from the Radio Norfolk site as if the program cannot be downloaded via iplayer so you will only be able to listen to it live.

Anyway, thats enough blogging. I have two talks to do in London tomorrow. A talk for CLT on repossession proceedings in the morning and a talk about Landlord-Law at the Legal IT Show in the afternoon. Thankfully it looks as if the snow won’t be too bad for my journey, But I will have to get up at 5.00 am to catch the early train, which is never nice. And I still haven’t packed my bag!

Blowing in the wind

One of my favourite songs by American singer songwriter Suzanne Vega is Gypsy, in particular these words:

And we'll blow away forever soon
And go on to different lands

And please do not ever look for me
But with me you will stay
And you will hear yourself in song
Blowing by one day

I always loved that image of walking down a busy road and suddenly hearing yourself float by in sound, perhaps from a cafe, perhaps from a radio carried by someone on the street, none of them realising ...

Well in a sense it is going to happen to me now - not alas a romantic song from a former lover (I wish), but something a bit more prosaic. Yes, we have invested in a radio campaign!

Ever the optimist, I have decided that the current hard times should be a good opportunity for us, as our service is aimed at people wanting to save money. All that is necessary is for them to find out about us ... Hence the radio ad.

Let me know if you hear it.

My Deposits open to all

Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk.

***

I have seen quite a few news and other items on the internet reporting the statement from the ‘my deposits’ tenancy deposit scheme confirming that, unlike Tenancy Deposit Scheme (run by the Dispute Service), they will not be withdrawing cover from unaccredited agents (see my report here).

However this is hardly surprising as my deposits is a partnership between the National Landlords Association and Hamilton Fraser Insurance. Presumably Hamilton Fraser are more minded to provide cover to all, being part owners of the business, than the (unnamed) insurers of the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. Even so, the press release states that my deposits will be introducing more stringent financial checks.

The third tenancy deposit company, The Deposit Protection Service, as the ‘default’ provider, is always open to all landlords and agents (see further here).

Good luck President Obama

When I watched the inauguration yesterday I half wished I was American. When I watched the Panorama programme on American healthcare later on iplayer I was thankful to be British. America is a wonderful country with a great history and heritage, but we have things to be proud of too.

It is ironic that at a time when the USA has a president which the majority of British support after the hugely unpopular Bush, we are warned that the ‘special relationship’ is about to take a nose dive.

However no matter. We are not the problem, so perhaps it is right that we take a bit of a back seat in the presidential intray. And hopefully our scientists can work together now to save the planet.

I wish him all the best.

Centrepoint – Charity of the month (January 2009)

Centrepoint is a charity which for 40 years has been helping homeless young people in London, and more recently in the North East. Young people are given temporary accommodation, and are then helped to sort themselves out. The aim is that those helped will then move on and be able to live useful lives.

With unemployment rising, there are likely to be more youngsters on the street rather than less.

To read more, and to make a donation, click here.

Obtaining credit – small firms penalised

I feel I should record my recent (successful, sort of) attempts to obtain credit. We are actually doing fairly well at the moment (all things considered) but I decided I needed a small one year loan of about £3,000 to help me pay my tax, and help fund the purchase of a new printer and a few other bits and bobs.

About five days ago I telephoned Exclusive Benefits Plc, a finance company originally recommended by the Law Society, which I have often used in the past to get business loans. The first news I received was that they had been told that they could not lend to solicitors firms with less than three partners. "I’m so sorry" said the nice man at EB, "I know it goes against all that the government has been saying, but that is what we have been told by lenders". He then went on to say that they could make a loan to me, but only on a personal basis. The main difference, it turned out, was that the money would be paid into my personal account rather than the business account, and as the main purpose of the loan was to help me pay my tax, that would be all right.

He then broke the news to me that the APR would be 17.9%. "What!" I yelped, "But bank base rate is 1.5%!!" “I know, I know” he replied "but the banks are very unwilling to lend and, as the loan is only for £3,000, that is the best we can do". Well I need the money so I told him to go ahead.

The next day he rang back, even more apologetic, to tell me that he had now been told that the APR would be 24.4%. "I’m really sorry about this" he said "I don’t like having to quote interest rates at over 20%, but that is all that is available". However we worked out that the actual difference to me would be about £9 per month, which looked at in that light is affordable, if annoying. "And you can always pay back the loan early if you wish" he reminded me. We agreed that he would send out the paperwork to me, but that I would have a word with my bank, Lloyds TSB, to see if they could do any better.

I then rang my bank manager, a new manager who I have not yet met or spoken to. His assistant said that he was on an appointment, and could she help? I told her that I was enquiring about a small one year loan of £3,000 to help pay my tax. "Well", said the assistant, "I think you had better make an appointment and come in and see him". I explained to her that I already had an offer of a loan elsewhere but only at a very high interest rate, and was ringing up to see if my own bank could do something better for me. However it would not really be economic if, to obtain this, I had to give up half a days work. Could I perhaps speak to my bank manager about it, and see what the prospects were? She said that she would pass my message on and that he would get back to me. I am still waiting for the call.

So reader, I have now signed the paperwork for the 24.4%APR loan and will hopefully receive the money in the next few days. The lender, in case you are interested, is the Co-operative Bank. I suppose I am lucky to have got a loan at all in these days. But is it very disheartening to learn that small firms are being discriminated against by lenders in this way, after all we have been told by government. Something should be done about it. Gordon?

The Dickens case

Those who have read articles here in the past about ASBO landlord Dickens will find an excellent report on the Nearly Legal site here.

The new MacBook

I treated myself to an Apple MacBook over Christmas. I am still feeling a bit guilty about it because, frankly I could have got something much cheaper - but I wanted to try a Mac! Having got it though I am really pleased I did.

The MacBook I bought was the cheapest available, the small white one, not the new and more expensive aluminum. I did wonder if I could get something in the sales, but it seems that Macs are not included in the current frenzy of discounting. Somehow I find that comforting.

It was apparent as soon as I had taken it out of the box, that I was dealing with a quality product. For example, the power supply box has neat little prongs which slide out for winding excess cable around, and where the cable plugs into the machine it is magnestised so it does not wobble. I was a bit worried about not being able to use the machine easily but actually it was all fairly straightforward and intuitive - for example it logged itself into our wireless network without me really having to do much at all.

The screen is wonderful! I am gradually watching all my DVDs again, just to see how great they look. On the Mac you just shove the CDs into a slot at the side, which I think is much better.

In order to get best use out of my new mac, I bought Mac OS X Leopard: The Missing Manual by David Pogue, which has been brilliant. I have worked through it over the past week and it has taught me lots I would never have known otherwise. So, after about 2 weeks use, what do I like and what do I dislike?

Likes:

• The screen! Much better quality that any other screen in the house I think!
  
• The ability to scroll by using two fingers on the touch pad
  
• The spotlight search facility - a great way to find things
  
• The dock (which I have put on the left, where my MS Office tool bar goes on my PC) - and I like the way the icons bounce up and down as the programs open
  
• The helpful menulets at the top
  
• I also quite like the finder box design, used for all folders
  
• The fact that I don’t have to worry about viruses as apparently macs are immune to them
  
• The MacBook is much lighter to carry around than our clunky old Dell laptop (now taken over by my son)

Dislikes:

• For someone whose eyesight is getting gradually worse, the icons and font (on the macbook at any rate) tend to be a bit small (this is presumably something the young things at Apple who do the designing won’t have a problem with, yet ...)
  
• I rather miss the links in the bar at the bottom of the screen for moving from one program to another that you get in PCs (there’s a thing called expose (fn and F9) which tiles all your programs so you can find a hidden window, but I have not really got used to it yet)
  
• It is confusing that the buttons to close programs are at the top left rather than at the top right as in windows, also they are very small (although quite pretty)
  
• I don’t like Pages very much - I bought iwork to get the full mac experience (plus it is cheaper) but I think that this was a mistake, I should have got Office for Mac. At the time though Office seemed the boring option
  
• There are also problems in that some of the specialist software I use on my PC won’t work on the mac, this also includes the admin area of Landlord-Law which was designed for me using a PC! So I don’t think I will be replacing the office PC yet.

Generally I am finding the mac better for recreational use (such as watching DVDs and messing around on the internet) rather than work stuff, which I find it easier to do at the desktop PC. The screen is so much bigger on my PC (albeit of a lesser quality) so I can see everything better, and I prefer using Word. I suspect however that as time goes by I will get to like the mac more and more. I am gradually becoming as it were bilingual.

Overall it has been a good experience. However if you do get a mac, do get the missing manual book too.

Preventing drug factories in rented properties

I have recently been provided by Suffolk Police with an excellent guide to spotting and dealing with drug production in rented properties. This is an increasing problem, for example drug producers renting houses for the sole purpose of growing cannabis. This is very bad for the landlords as not only will it affect their reputation, but also considerable damage can be done to their property, plus it will have a very negative effect on the neighbourhood as a whole.

All landlords should read the full document (which you will find here) but here are a few tell tale signs of cannabis production:

• Windows permanently covered from the inside
  
• Visits to the property at unusual times
  
• A large number of pots and lights being moved in to set up the ‘factory’
  
• Tenants not living at the property
  
• A vent protruding through the roof or a rear window
  
• A pungent smell coming from the premises
  
• Large amounts of soil and pots in the back garden
  
• Noise coming from equipment such as cooling fans
  
• Shared walls in terraced houses being damp to the touch

The leaflet also gives guidance on how to spot and avoid drug producers as tenants. For example:

• Be very suspicious if you are offered a substantial cash sum ‘up front’ for immediate access – insist on all tenants going through your application process
  
• Be rigorous in referencing potential tenants and take photo identification
  
• Be suspicious if tenants ask you not to visit the property, particularly if they ask to meet you to pay rent in cash rather than have you visit the building

Apparently also many drug criminals use a ‘Front Couple’. These people will appear to be a genuine average respectable couple looking to rent a property for their own use. After they have been shown around the property by the landlord and have taken
possession of the property, they will disappear without trace. They will then be replaced by members of the drug gang who will convert the property for drug production or cultivation.

The leaflet ends with the following warning:

If you have reason to believe there is an illicit lab on a property and you have been exposed directly, leave immediately, wash your face and hands. Call 999, request the police and report what you observed. If you have reason to believe your exposure has been extensive, contact your doctor. Some of the chemicals involved in creating these drugs are toxic, corrosive and carcinogenic.

You can also ring crime stoppers on 0800 555 111

Tenancy deposit protection award made to tenant in new case in Birmingham

I have learned from the excellent 'Recent developments in Housing Law' section of Legal Action Magazine, of Ferguson v. Jones (November 2008) a new tenancy deposit case in Birmingham County Court.

Here Mrs Jones was an assured shorthold tenancy. Her landlord failed to protect her deposit within the prescribed 14 days. It was only protected after he had commenced proceedings for possession (we are not told whether these were pursuant to section 21 or section 8, presumably section 8) and after Mrs Jones had counterclaimed for disrepair, plus the ‘fine’ of three times the amount of the tenancy deposit, as prescribed by s214(2) and (3) of the Housing Act 2004.

District Judge Sheldrake held that the court had no discretion under s214(4) and had to order the landlord to pay the fine. The Judge commented that the statutory provisions would be otiose if the landlord could escape the penalty in s214(4) by placing the deposit in an authorised scheme after the 14 day period. To have interpreted s214(4) in any other way would have been contract to parliaments intention.

Just to remind you, the relevant sections of 214 read as follows:

214 Proceedings relating to tenancy deposits:
(1) Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) may make an application to a county court on the grounds—
(a) that the initial requirements of an authorised scheme (see section 213(4)) have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit; or
(b) that he has been notified by the landlord that a particular authorised scheme applies to the deposit but has been unable to obtain confirmation from the scheme administrator that the deposit is being held in accordance with the scheme.

(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if on such an application the court—
(a) is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or
(b) is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme,
as the case may be.

(3) The court must, as it thinks fit, either—
(a) order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or
(b) order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme,
within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

(4) The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

(5) Where any deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy could not be lawfully required as a result of section 213(7), the property in question is recoverable from the person holding it by the person by whom it was given as a deposit.

(6) In subsection (5) “deposit” has the meaning given by section 213(8).

You can see the whole section of the act on tenancy deposits here

Landlords should take note of this decision, and make sure that the deposit is always protected within the 14 day period.

DPS open to all landlords

Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk.

***

Having seen comments on forums about the Deposit Protection Service refusing to accept deposits from landlords, for example if the money is paid over more than 14 days after it is paid to them (putting them in default of the scheme, unable to evict tenants under s21, and vulnerable to being sued for the ‘fine’ of 3 x the deposit sum), I thought I had better check this out with the company itself.

However I am pleased to confirm that the rumour is incorrect, and that there are no rules preventing landlords from being able to protect deposits, with the DPS as any rate (things are different with the other two schemes).

Or to quote my DPS contact:

"We accept deposits at anytime, there is no validation on the system preventing payment. We issue reminders if payment is not received within four weeks but that's as far as our enforcement remit allows. We are the default scheme open and inclusive to all."

Note however that the fact that the DPS will accept deposits out of time, does not mean that landlords are in any way excused from complying with the 14 day rule!

TDS ditches unregulated agents

TDS, the tenancy deposit scheme aimed at letting agents, has now announced that it will only accept agents and landlords who are members of recognised professional bodies as members from now on. With effect from 6 April 2009 they will be withdrawing membership from current non regulated members.

This action, it appears, has been taken at the insistence of TDS insurers. Another manifestation of the credit crunch perhaps?

The official press release states that they will be writing, not only to all their unregulated agents but also to the tenants of unregulated agents.

Indeed I have learned of one case where TDS have already written to an agent and his tenants (on 2 Jan, before the press release). The agent (who is very reputable) is not surprisingly very upset about the effect this is having on his tenants, particularly as he was given no warning that TDS were going to do this, and therefore had no opportunity to contact his tenants first to explain what action he will be taking regarding their deposits. I understand that a formal complaint will be going in very shortly to TDS about this. Surely it is not beyond the wit of TDS to leave a week or so between writing to the agents/landlords and their tenants?

The press release suggests that agents should be a member of either the Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA), The National Approved Lettings Scheme (NALS), the National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA), or the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). They do not mention other relevant professional organisations such as the Law Society and the Guild of Letting and Management. Presumably members of these organisations are not going to be ‘evicted’ from the scheme also?

My correspondent (the solicitor of the aggrieved agent) points out that TDS action appears to be excessive, as they should have weeded out any ‘bad apple’ agents at the time of application. He also queries whether this action is within the government guidelines for TDS schemes to be available to all.

It certainly seems to be an unfortunate glitch, and will undoubtedly cause a lot of upset among blameless (albeit unregulated) agents, who it should be pointed out, are already paying a considerably higher membership fee to TDS, than for example ARLA agents are.

Two other questions to ask are:

1. Have TDS considered finding alternate insurers (admittedly probably difficult in the current economic climate), and
2. Are there any grounds for the unregulated agents, about to be evicted from the scheme, to sue?

I would be interested to hear from any affected parties as to the effect this will have on them and what action, if any, they are taking against TDS.

Credit crunches I have known

I met one of the partners of the firm I used to work for this morning, and chatting to him reminded me of the crashes and crunches of the past.

I was at school in the 1970s and the winter of discontent. It seemed great fun as a kid when the power went off. We had to use candles. My dad cooked our dinner on a makeshift barbecue in the yard (he never did it again, much to my disappointment) and we had a coal fire. But other than that I can’t really remember much about it.

Then there was the depression in the early 1980s. I was just out of University and living up north. It is the only time in my life I have been completely unable to find a job. No-one was interested in my geography degree. I cheered myself up by reading War and Peace in about 5 days, reading non stop all day. Its a funny feeling when you read non stop all day like that. But it helped.

Mainly as a result of the early 80s crunch, I moved down south to live with my parents, and started the long process of qualifying as a solicitor (London external law degree while working, and then the Law Society finals). During this time I bought the smallest flat in Blackheath. After passing my last set of exams (and taking a lifelong vow never to do any more, ever), I took a year off to travel, after which I planned to move up to Norwich to do my articles (thats what we called it back then, articled clerks, not trainee solicitors).

That was 1988. During that year the government decided to get rid of MIRAS. Couples all over the country were desperate to buy before the deadline. I can remember sitting in the British Embassy in Mexico City reading in The Times about the selling frenzy back home. “Well”, I thought, “Should be all right selling the flat when I get back”. Ha! I arrived back to the property market crash. It took me nearly a year to sell my flat. (Later of course I wished I had kept it ...).

The property crash went on for some time. Lots of people were in negative equity. Sales went through the floor. During my stint in the conveyancing department at work (articled clerks did 6 months in four different departments then, I don’t know what they do now), I had hardly anything to do. I can remember sitting in my office and reading the Yellow Pages (not as boring as it sounds, I was researching local services) and looking up obscure points of law in Halsbury.

So here we are again. Crunch time. They say it is the worst ever (apart from the 1930s depression), but in many ways many of us are much better off (in England that is). When I was a child, for a long time we had no fridge or TV, and I don’t think we were particularly unusual. Personal computers had not been invented. When I was at University, no-one had a car, we all used bicycles. Things feel more prosperous now.

But we will have to see how it goes during this new year of 2009. Good luck to you all. And a happy new year.

Musings on the tenancy deposit protection scheme

Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk.

One of my landlord clients who has successfully defeated a nuisance claim brought by her tenants under the tenancy deposit protection legislation, has reported an interesting conversation she had with the Judge. Apparently the Judge said that the judiciary generally are unhappy with the legislation. The main reason being the automatic aspect, as they do not like having their decision power taken away from them.

That’s fair enough and I can understand their point of view. The trouble is, that if the Judges have a discretion whether to make the award or not, it makes it impossible for us advisors to give any meaningful advice. Inevitably different Judges will decide similar cases in different ways. This will result in injustice overall, as it is inequitable for a tenant’s right to an award to depend on the particular viewpoint of the Judge concerned (who may not be experienced in housing work). If the award is automatic then people know where they are.

It is important also to understand the reason for the legislation in the first place. It is to force landlords (many of whom are still in denial) to use the tenancy deposit protection scheme. A scheme set up to protect tenants from the injustice of landlords (not all of them by any means but a fair number) effectively stealing tenants money by unreasonably refusing to return deposits.

If landlords see a window of opportunity many of them will continue to refuse to protect deposits, rendering the new scheme useless. It will of course mostly be the ‘bad landlords’ who will do this – ‘good landlords’ are on the whole already compliant.

So automatic penalties are the best way of preventing avoidance. It is harsh justice on those who offend through ignorance, however this is not the only field where ignorance of the law is no defence – and there are many sources of free help and information. This legislation has been in force for over a year now - there is really no excuse for non compliance any more.

Incidentially, my client had protected her deposit and had the paperwork to prove it.

Painsmith Blog

I have just discovered the excellent blog from Landlord and Tenant specialists Painsmith Solicitors. It has some really interesting posts, as one would expect, and I shall certainly be reading it in future. Highly recommended to anyone interested in landlord and tenant.

Homeless hostel too comfortable says VAT man

Reading the recent issue of Roof Magazine, I came across this utterly bonkers decision by the VAT authorities.

Byker Housing Association has built a new 31 bed hostel for the homeless in Newcastle – however the VAT authorities have deemed it to be a commercial building (i.e. a hotel) rather than a residential one - because it is too comfortable! This means that it becomes liable for VAT of £315,000 – which will put Byker Bridge out of business.

Under the VAT rules, hostels should be exempt from VAT if they are for a residential use, designed as a dwelling, or used for a relevant charitable purpose. Despite this, because the VAT office does not have a workable definition of a homeless persons hostel, and because the new hostel is quite nice, they are treating it as if it were a hotel for tax purposes. Even though the building was partly developed with Housing Corporation finance which is only available for non commercial ventures!

Hopefully this decision will be set aside. Otherwise Byker Bridge will go out of business, there will be 1,500 per year more homeless on the streets of Newcastle, and it will have a knock on effect on other registered social landlords developing homeless hostels

Shelter – Charity of the Month (December 2008)

Shelter is a great force for good in this country and thousands of tenants and homeless people will be forever grateful to it for its help.

As they say on their web-site "Shelter believes everyone should have a home. We help people find and keep a home. We campaign for decent housing for all".

They offer some brilliant services. For example:

• They have a free housing advice helpline - 0808 800 4444
  
• They have numerous advice offices where you can visit for free help and advice
  
• They campaign tirelessly – see here on their part in the recent assistance given to prevent repossessions
  
• They publish an excellent magazine Roof (reviewed by me on Landlord-Law here)
  
• And they also have many resources for professionals

If you want to donate – click here

Convicted HMO landlord – doing the community a service?

This is the sort of attitude that Local Authorities have to put up with. Mr Bowden in Ipswich, who recently pleaded guilty convicted in the Magistrates Court to operating a house of multiple occupation without a licence (reported here), considers he has done nothing wrong. However,

- The property had 19 people living in it
- There were minimal fire precautions
- A converted attic was only accessible via an unsafe staircase
- A woman was living in a room with no natural light,

to name just a few of the problems. Yet Mr Bowden claimed "It seems a ridiculous thing to go to court about. It's something over nothing. Yes, I should've had a licence to rent a third floor, but I wasn't aware I needed one. … I've given people a roof over their heads that they otherwise couldn't get. Some people can't afford a deposit so I asked for very little. In some respects I was helping the council out but obviously they took a different view - I think I was doing the community a good service."

There is of course some force in what he says. It is generally better for the homeless person to be in an unsafe building than on the street. However an unsafe building threatens everyone around it. If there was a fire, all of the 19 occupants could have been killed, along with those living in adjacent properties. It cannot be allowed.

Mr Bowden, despite his protestations, is no doubt aware of this. Apparently when Environmental Health Officials made an appointment to view the property he made sure his tenants were out of the way.

It is good to see that there are more and more reports of Local Authorities using their powers under the Housing Act 2004, for example a report here of a landlord fined in Oxford.. I firmly believe that Local Authority action is the best way to deal with defective property, and that it should not be up to individual tenants to do this.

Landlords responsiblities for fire safety

I have been sent a press release by the Fire Brigade regarding a sucessful prosecution of a landlord who was found guilty of breaches of fire safety legislation and ordered to pay nearly £13,000 in fines and costs. The press release reads:

Uxbridge Magistrates' Court fined Armajit Singh, £5,600 for seven breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Mr. Singh did not own the premises but was managing it for his uncle and had responsibility for the property’s maintenance and repairs.

The prosecution followed a fire at the house converted into flats on Wood End Green Road, Hayes on 14 September 2007. A man and a woman were woken by the blaze and tried to escape via the staircase but it was engulfed by thick black smoke. They escaped by smashing the first floor bedroom window and jumping out. The woman broke her ankle in the fall and the man suffered deep cuts to his hands.

Fire safety inspectors visited the premises and found that there were a number of faults including no smoke alarm or fire extinguishers in the property and none of the doors were fire resistant.

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 came into force in October 2006. In a landlord and tenant context it provides for those in control of properties and responsible for the maintenance and repairs (generally this will be the landlord) to carry out a fire risk assessment (which must be kept up to date), and to implement appropriate fire safety measures to minimise the risk to life from fire.

Note that the two pictures showing the damage done by the fire are copyright of the London Fire Brigade.



Mind you, maybe Mr Singh got off lightly. In October, Mr Mehmat Parlak was sentenced to four months imprisonment and his company, Watchacre properties limited, was fined £21,000 following a similar prosecution under the Regulations. Landlords be warned!