Comment: will landlords really evict ant-social tenants in two weeks?
“Renters at risk under plans to let landlords evict tenants with two weeks notice,” says one headline.
Yes, it kind of implies that tenants will be summarily evicted, I thought so when I first read it. As the recent press reports would have us believe, but this is not going to be possible, given the way the system works at the moment…
The Government has announced a Plan to get tough on unruly tenants, to increase landlords’ rights to make it easier and quicker to evict anti-social tenants. Some press reports have even included damage to the property and rent arrears as part of the Plan.
But is this just a “sweetener” for landlords in view of the pending Renter’s Reform Bill, legislation that will hand out considerably more powers to tenants, and the big question is, how will it actually work out in practice?
The Plan
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Anti-social Behaviour Action Plan unveiled last week has the laudable aim of cracking down on antisocial behaviour generally. It aims to “make sure anti-social behaviour is treated with the urgency it deserves,” and to roll out new “immediate justice” so that perpetrators can be made to “swiftly clean up their own mess, … giving communities more of a say over, and more visibility of, reparation.”
For landlords there are plans to introduce a new property ombudsman, reduce the notice period for all anti-social behaviour-related evictions to two weeks and presumably make it much easier to navigate the eviction process for troublesome tenants.
Repair the damage
The plan says that perpetrators will be made to repair the damage they inflicted on victims and communities, with the ambition of reparative work starting within 48 hours of them being given a disposal by the police. They will have to clean up graffiti and pick litter, even wash police cars, while wearing jumpsuits or high-vis vests, and under supervision of course.
Well, I’ll believe that when I see it!
With the increased incidence of self-reported acts of anti-social behaviour (as opposed a decline in police reported incidents), landlords and law-abiding tenants would clearly benefit from such stronger action by the police. And a change in the law, with real punitive systems to make sure that perpetrators are dealt with swiftly and effectively, would clearly be welcomed by everyone.
Yes, these changes would clearly be welcomed but forgive the cynicism; just how effective will these changes be? I want to be positive and I would like to think they will be very effective. But we all know, we’ve all heard the stories, and many of us have experienced it for ourselves, police action, police effectiveness, is not what was!
Landlord-tenant issues, even those bordering on the criminal, are invariably treated as civil matters, something the police are not generally interested in. As the police will tell you, they have a strict hierarchy of priorities: terrorism, knife and gun crime, sexual offending, domestic abuse and safeguarding vulnerable people from predatory behaviour.
I’m afraid that things like house breaking, vehicle theft and landlord-tenant issues (unless they involve violence) come way down on this list, and as the police constantly tell us themselves, as they claim, they just don’t have the resources.
Speed up the court system
“We will seek to halve the delay between a private landlords serving notice for anti-social behaviour and eviction and broaden the disruptive and harmful activities that can lead to eviction. We will also provide a clear expectation previous anti-social behaviour offenders are de-prioritised for social housing,” says the Plan.
But we all know, again, our slimed down county court system is overwhelmed, still recovering from the Covid pandemic backlog, generally it can take more than six months to evict a tenant, and that’s using Section 21, which is to be abolished.
Even a Parliament committee says that, “The Government risks undermining its own proposed tenancy reforms, include the banning of section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions, unless it fixes delays in the court system.”
This really does have the potential for the Government’s plans on rental reform to collapse into chaos!
A central pillar of Housing Secretary Michael Gove’s Renter’s Reform Bill is a plan to prevent unfair evictions. Without the Section 21 process this implies a test of fairness which involves a court hearing – a test of fairness in front of a county court judge, somewhat juxtaposing the Plan for speedy or summary evictions?
Who says its anti-social behaviour?
The Plan aims to speed up eviction times for perpetrators of anti-social behaviour but just how is this to be defined, surely this is open to wide wide interpretation. Will warnings be given first, if so how many, will the police really have the power to both enforce the law as well as meat out punishment?
A difficult process
Securing an eviction for anti-social behaviour has always been, up to now at least, a difficult process. The courts want good evidence and that’s often hard to gather. Police crime reports are helpful, as are witness statements from neighbours. But neighbours are often reluctant to help, even when it is happening to them, because of the fear of reprisals. They expect the landlord to intervene.
Success usually lies at the end of a long protracted process of keeping diary entries of incidents, collecting police reports and any witness reports you are lucky enough to get, going to court and convincing a judge – it can take months or even years!
The courts will always be careful about depriving tenants of a roof over their heads, they will err on the side of caution and resist evictions wherever possible, often simply giving warnings and a second chance.
Where would you draw the line?
Noisy tenants – and that’s probably the biggest cause of complaints – can drive neighbours and landlords to distraction. Having parties, playing loud music at in appropriate times as well as running washing machines overnight, banging from floors above, all constitute unreasonable and anti-social behaviour, but are they serious enough for summary eviction – somehow I doubt that.
The rules already exist for dealing with anti-social tenants and I can’t see that changing – it means going to court, so unless the behaviour is criminal and the police can deal with it quicker, don’t hold your breath, we’re stuck with what we already have.
Defining anti-social behaviour
To obtain an eviction you must show that the person’s behaviour is a “persistent pattern of anti-social behaviour,” generally falling into one of the following categories:
- verbal abuse
- harassment because of gender, race, disability or sexuality
- violence or threats of violence
- systematic bullying and/or intimidation
- a pattern noise creation
- dumping rubbish
- vandalism, damage to property and graffiti.
- Inappropriate parking
- Not controlling pets
Persistent behaviour – therein lies the rub: one or two occasions may not constitute an issue, it must be occurring multiple times, but then the question of how often arises, and the seriousness of the event would also have to be taken into account. It’s a very complex issue not easily solved by quick action.
View Full Article: Comment: will landlords really evict ant-social tenants in two weeks?
Post comment
Categories
- Landlords (19)
- Real Estate (9)
- Renewables & Green Issues (1)
- Rental Property Investment (1)
- Tenants (21)
- Uncategorized (11,916)
Archives
- December 2024 (43)
- November 2024 (64)
- October 2024 (82)
- September 2024 (69)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (64)
- June 2024 (54)
- May 2024 (73)
- April 2024 (59)
- March 2024 (49)
- February 2024 (57)
- January 2024 (58)
- December 2023 (56)
- November 2023 (59)
- October 2023 (67)
- September 2023 (136)
- August 2023 (131)
- July 2023 (129)
- June 2023 (128)
- May 2023 (140)
- April 2023 (121)
- March 2023 (168)
- February 2023 (155)
- January 2023 (152)
- December 2022 (136)
- November 2022 (158)
- October 2022 (146)
- September 2022 (148)
- August 2022 (169)
- July 2022 (124)
- June 2022 (124)
- May 2022 (130)
- April 2022 (116)
- March 2022 (155)
- February 2022 (124)
- January 2022 (120)
- December 2021 (117)
- November 2021 (139)
- October 2021 (130)
- September 2021 (138)
- August 2021 (110)
- July 2021 (110)
- June 2021 (60)
- May 2021 (127)
- April 2021 (122)
- March 2021 (156)
- February 2021 (154)
- January 2021 (133)
- December 2020 (126)
- November 2020 (159)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (181)
- August 2020 (147)
- July 2020 (172)
- June 2020 (158)
- May 2020 (177)
- April 2020 (188)
- March 2020 (234)
- February 2020 (212)
- January 2020 (164)
- December 2019 (107)
- November 2019 (131)
- October 2019 (145)
- September 2019 (123)
- August 2019 (112)
- July 2019 (93)
- June 2019 (82)
- May 2019 (94)
- April 2019 (88)
- March 2019 (78)
- February 2019 (77)
- January 2019 (71)
- December 2018 (37)
- November 2018 (85)
- October 2018 (108)
- September 2018 (110)
- August 2018 (135)
- July 2018 (140)
- June 2018 (118)
- May 2018 (113)
- April 2018 (64)
- March 2018 (96)
- February 2018 (82)
- January 2018 (92)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (100)
- October 2017 (105)
- September 2017 (97)
- August 2017 (101)
- July 2017 (104)
- June 2017 (155)
- May 2017 (135)
- April 2017 (113)
- March 2017 (138)
- February 2017 (150)
- January 2017 (127)
- December 2016 (90)
- November 2016 (135)
- October 2016 (149)
- September 2016 (135)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (52)
- June 2016 (54)
- May 2016 (52)
- April 2016 (24)
- October 2014 (8)
- April 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (10)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (9)
- August 2011 (3)
Calendar
Recent Posts
- Landlords’ Rights Bill: Let’s tell the government what we want
- 2025 will be crucial for leasehold reform as secondary legislation takes shape
- Reeves inflationary budget puts mockers on Bank Base Rate reduction
- How to Avoid SDLT Hikes In 2025
- Shelter Scotland slams council for stripping homeless households of ‘human rights’