asbo landlordCatherine Boyle, 59, has been described as a “landlord from hell” by the Kilburn Times.

Boyle was given an ASBO by Highbury Magistrates Court after the council took action against her for failure to comply with legal safety regulations, including breaches of fire-regulations applying to Houses in Multiple Occupation and supplying non-fire-retardant furniture. The ASBO, believed to be the first given to a landlord, bans Boyle, who lived alongside her tenants, from causing alarm, harassment or distress to her tenants, entering their rooms without consent and cutting off their gas or electricity. The order lasts for 2 years.

Boyle had been cautioned in August 2010 for assaulting one of her tenants. In addition to the ASBO, she has been fined £3,600, ordered to pay legal costs of £4459.60 and a £15 victim support levy. She is required to carry out the improvement works by March next year.

 

 

A Salford Landlord has been fined £10,000 plus £5,000 costs after failing to apply for a landlord licence for his rental properties.

Salford City Council introduced landlord licensing to parts of Broughton, Greater Manchester, in 2009. All private landlords with properties in the area were required to apply for a licence, with a separate licence needed for each property.

Mr Kamali pleaded guilty to failing to licence 20 properties in the area and was fined £500 per property, a total of £10,000. He was also ordered to pay £5,000 legal costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

The council said that Mr Kamali had been reminded several times that he needed to obtain licences for his properties but had only done so when court action had been commenced.

RentFair opposes landlord licensing. See our post on Newham Council’s proposal to licence all landlords in the borough.

 

Fizzy in Epsom

They are aimed at the “Rentysomethings” apparently. Expensive high-spec new apartments, with 2GB broadband included, a bathroom for each bedroom, and the promise of a “landlord you can trust”.

Those are some of the claims of Fizzy Living, a new commercial venture by Thames Valley Housing Association.  Thames Valley, which manages 14,000 affordable homes in London and the south east has launched a £200 million commercial subsidiary to provide quality homes to young professionals, aged 25 – 35. The plan is to use Thames Valley’s property and management skills to make a commercial profit from market rents, a profit which they intend to use to cross-subsidise their social housing operation.

Perhaps conscious that young professionals may not necessarily rush to pay high rents for housing association property, the apartments are being marketed under the brand name Fizzy Living with the strapline “Reinventing Renting”. The glossy website doesn’t undersell: “For far too long the private rental sector has been substandard and complacent. Rents are overpriced and tenants under serviced. We’re here to change all that…. people who rent from us will enjoy a brilliant experience.”  A brilliant experience?  Really?

Fizzy Living currently has two sites – Epsom and the recently-opened Canning Town.   The Canning Town apartments are contained in a 12 storey tower block in a relatively unspectacular part of east London.  Most of the apartments have their own balconies and tenants have access to the development’s communal landscaped garden area.  A health club and shops are planned for the ground floor.  A variety of furniture packages are available and tenants can pay extra to rent a parking space.  1 bed flats start at £1050 per month and 2 beds at £1450 per month.  If you want the best views you have to pay extra:  the 2 bedroom top-floor flat, for example, will set you back £1999 per month.  According to the website, Fizzy buildings have a dedicated manager, Bob, to deal with any property related issues.

There is undoubtedly a demand for secure, clean rental accommodation from a reliable landlord to bridge the gap between university and getting a foot on the housing ladder.   Fizzy rents are not the cheapest but tenants do have the comfort of knowing that they are surrounded by other tenants of a similar age, that they are unlikely to be evicted at short notice and that – and we have no reason to doubt their claims – that the apartments will be modern and well maintained.  If the rent is a little steep for those just starting work, there are likely to be parents willing to step in and help, preferring the security of a Fizzy apartment as their little ones make their first steps alone in the big wide world.

A brilliant experience? Perhaps not.  But we applaud this venture and hope that other housing associations and institutional investors will follow suit.  Reinventing Renting it may well turn out to be.

 

A landlord who built up a property empire worth an estimated £1.8 million by illegally converting houses into multiple flats has been ordered by Harrow Crown Court to pay £310,000 in fines.   If he fails to pay the fine within six months, he faces a possible three and a half years in prison.

Vispasp Sarkari is said to have bought rundown terraced and semi-detached houses and illegally divided them into flats without planning permission, renting them out to tenants who were desperate for accommodation.  Sarkari has already served a jail sentence for credit card fraud and has another conviction for breaching fire regulations at one of his properties.

Unusually, the action, brought jointly by Brent and Harrow councils, was under the Proceeds of Crime Act, which allows much higher fines than planning laws which would be the usual basis for a prosecution.  The rogue landlord was ordered to pay £303,000 based on the rent he had collected in his four properties since 2005.  He was also ordered to pay a fine of £7,515 for breaching planning regulations and legal costs of more than £18,000.

Keith Ferry, of Harrow Council, said “This landlord ignored planning rules designed to ensure the quality of accommodation in the boroughs is maintained and that the environment for surrounding residents is protected.  He ignored the council’s notices.  As a result he profited hugely from this sub-standard accommodation.  This sort of behaviour will not be tolerated in Harrow.”

 

 

 

Cheshire Tenants owed thousands of pounds by luxury estate agent in Wilmslow” – one headline in the Manchester Evening News last month.  Sadly, such tales of financial mismanagement by letting agents are becoming all too common.

The Manchester story concerns letting agency, Spencer Knight, which has shut its doors without warning, leaving dozens of tenants worried about how they will get their deposits back. The deposits were supposedly insured under one of the government deposit schemes but the insurers have now written to tenants saying that their deposits will not be covered after September 1st.  Angry tenants have been unable to contact the agency owners.

And this is far from the only case of landlords and tenants losing money through incompetent or fraudulent letting agents.   Earlier this year, former letting agent Peter Swatton was jailed for 36 weeks, suspended for 2 years, after fraud investigators uncovered an £85,000 black hole in the accounts of Abacus Accommodation Agency in Wrexham, North Wales.  The money – mainly landlord funds – had been misappropriated by Mr Swatton in an attempt to keep the business afloat after it got into financial difficulties.

Another letting agent, Joseph Newman in Canterbury, left around 70 landlords out of pocket when the business went into liquidation. Liquidators say the agency owes a total of £413,000, including deposits handed over by 250 tenants.

Despite these cases, the letting industry remains almost entirely unregulated.  Anyone can set up as a letting agent and collect money from landlords and tenants; there are no qualification requirements and no experience is needed.

In theory, tenancy deposits should be protected by one of the Government Deposit Schemes. But this too relies on the integrity of the agent in paying money into the scheme or taking out the appropriate insurance.   When tenants hand over their money they are rarely given any form of proof that the deposit is protected.

And landlords are also vulnerable, since rent owed to them is often collected by agents on their behalf. Even if rent is paid directly to the landlord, the first month’s rent may well be paid to the agent when the tenancy is signed, often in cash. All too frequently, there have been cases of agents going into liquidation before the money is paid to the landlord. There is no requirement for an agent to ring-fence the money, or to pay it into a separate client account. There is no requirement for letting agents to insure against such losses.

Is it time for compulsory regulation of letting agents?   Steve Harriott, chief executive of the Tenancy Deposit Scheme, thinks so.  Writing in Letting Agent Today, earlier this week, he expressed his dismay that time and again, “fraudulent letting agents get away with a smack on the hand”.   Harriott argues that if the government is unwilling to regulate, the industry should unite and introduce self-regulation.

Of course, one way of avoiding these pitfalls is not to use a letting agent.  Rent direct from the landlord, missing out the middleman.  Listing a property on RentFair is completely free and we even provide free tenancy agreements for download.  Landlords and tenants can deal with one of the government approved deposit schemes direct.

If you must use an agent, make sure it is a reputable one.  There are now websites offering reviews of agents, which may be worth reading before you hand over any money.  And preferably check that any agency you use is a member of either the SAFEagent scheme, or the National Approved Letting Scheme (NALS) – both schemes offer assurance that agents displaying their logo have protected their clients’ money.

© 2011 RentFair Blog Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha
Real Estate