'I took my landlord to court and won £15,000'

[adarmo]

11 hours ago, Dorkins said:

I would guess the law was written that way partly because it's difficult for local authorities to identify unlicensed HMOs, so the money going to the tenants means they have an incentive to dob their landlord in.

I agree with your point about all rental property being regulated to the same standards and always thought the definition/cutoff for an HMO was pretty arbitrary but I can understand why policymakers did it this way because HMOs are a known problem area for poor maintenance and breaches of tenants' rights so it allows some focusing of resources.

It would be interesting to make it compulsory for landlords to register all private rentals with the same penalty if they don't (all back rent repaid to the tenants). That would get a couple of million non-declarers twitching.

That would make sense (if it's indeed true) but this just looks to be really strange to award anything to a party that lost nothing. Fines for breaching the regulations should be administered but this is different. I see you point though, LAs are hard pressed these days so giving a tenant an incentive to shop the LL helps them out, but i you know your LL is dodgy don't you have an incentive to shop them only once you wish to move on so that you live a longer period rent free?

Hell yes on your last point. 

[adarmo]

11 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

They were put at personal risk by someone who was illegally renting and therefore had no right to charge them anything.

Also, its a deterrent to other criminals. If they are registered the quality of housing can be checked and the tax paying status of the landlord tracked. It also blocks illegal subletting.

Does the article state that? Yeah, maybe the property wasn't safe, but maybe it was. It certainly sounded like it was a lot cleaner and had a better landlord than the previous place these guys rented. 

Again though, the HMO rules are at odds with the renting to a family rules. You could have a fairly of 8 renting a place that's not an HMO but your get three individuals in there and suddenly it's unsafe. 
I'm not disagreeing with the idea of this other than to say it's not logical and it's inconsistent. Fully enough though it does give  a lot more power to the tenant and that should be welcome. 

[Peter Hun]

10 hours ago, adarmo said:

Does the article state that? Yeah, maybe the property wasn't safe, but maybe it was. It certainly sounded like it was a lot cleaner and had a better landlord than the previous place these guys rented. 

Again though, the HMO rules are at odds with the renting to a family rules. You could have a fairly of 8 renting a place that's not an HMO but your get three individuals in there and suddenly it's unsafe. 
I'm not disagreeing with the idea of this other than to say it's not logical and it's inconsistent. Fully enough though it does give  a lot more power to the tenant and that should be welcome. 

It's the law, introduced for very good reasons.

Landlords need to comply with the law, simple.

 

[adarmo]

7 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

It's the law, introduced for very good reasons.

Landlords need to comply with the law, simple.

 

I'm not saying it isn't the law and I'm not saying LLs don't need to comply. I'm saying that the law doesn't go far enough (again why need the hmo regs for three tenants but not if let to a family of eight) and the law of awarding money to people that haven't incurred a loss seems a bit odd given we are in the uk.

What are your thoughts on that?

You might argue that a tenant as paying for a service that wasnt ultimately provided. Maybe. But imho It's a penalty and should be awarded to the authorities to use to enforce regulations. Obviously I'm at odds with the law. 

My taxi driver broke the speed limit the other day. Do i get a free ride?

[Peter Hun]

2 minutes ago, adarmo said:

(again why need the hmo regs for three tenants but not if let to a family of eight)

Because HMO's are very different from a family home.

4 minutes ago, adarmo said:

and the law of awarding money to people that haven't incurred a loss seems a bit odd given we are in the uk.

So ******ing register the HMO.

The landlord has no legal right to charge rent in an unregistered HMO. So his illegal income has been confiscated as the proceeds of crime. This is a decades old, well established, principle.

11 minutes ago, adarmo said:

But imho It's a penalty and should be awarded to the authorities

Their lives have been put at risk and it's their money.

[Dorkins]

47 minutes ago, adarmo said:

My taxi driver broke the speed limit the other day. Do i get a free ride?

People always use speeding in these analogies because everybody is used to the rules of the road being broken all the time. What about if you discovered that your taxi driver didn't have a drivers licence, would you still be happy about having paid for that service?

A doctor practicing medicine without a licence performed minor surgery on my cousin the other day. Should she be entitled to a refund?

I'd say it's not a bad principle that somebody providing a service without the legally required licences should have to give the money back. They weren't supposed to be selling that service in the first place so why should they get to keep the proceeds of something they weren't supposed to be doing?

Edited April 21, 2019 by Dorkins

[Peter Hun]

6 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

doctor practicing medicine without a licence performed minor surgery on my cousin the other day. Should she be entitled to a refund?

If taken to court, she probably would get one. Same with the taxi driver.

With HMO's the law is specific, if unregistered tennants can claim all rent back and the landlord can be fined (for unlimited amounts????)

[Dorkins]

2 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

If taken to court, she probably would get one. Same with the taxi driver.

With HMO's the law is specific, if unregistered tennants can claim all rent back and the landlord can be fined (for unlimited amounts????)

Yes, as you say the law explicitly says the tenants get their money back if the HMO was unlicensed, plus I think the general principle that somebody providing an unlicensed service for which a licence is legally mandatory doesn't get to keep the proceeds seems morally justifiable.

[Habeas Domus]

I wonder what happens if a couple rent a place and then divorce but keep living in the same house as separate households, in theory they could then claim back all the rent they paid since moving in!

[Peter Hun]

Two is not a HMO

[spyguy]

4 hours ago, Habeas Domus said:

I wonder what happens if a couple rent a place and then divorce but keep living in the same house as separate households, in theory they could then claim back all the rent they paid since moving in!

Yeah, Im not sure if the number vary between LAs  but its around 5 unrelated adults.

Dont be splitting hairs to try justify HMO LLs. 99% are scum,

 

 

[adarmo]

9 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

Because HMO's are very different from a family home.

So ******ing register the HMO.

The landlord has no legal right to charge rent in an unregistered HMO. So his illegal income has been confiscated as the proceeds of crime. This is a decades old, well established, principle.

Their lives have been put at risk and it's their money.

How are they different? Does a grown up family still living with their parents count as a family home or an HMO? Why would it be less risky and not require regulation simply because they're related, or not even but a confirmed family unit? In fact they just need to be defined as 1 'household' to avoid the regs. 1 Household can include all household staff, so you need to set up everyone as a cleaner, cook, au-pair, butler etc and you're set! Fricking joke. 

Yes, I'm not saying it shouldn't have been registered. I'm saying ALL RENTALS SHOULD BE REGULATED TO THE SAME STANDARD. Apologies for caps but sometimes when you've said things about three or more times one must make the point stand out. 

Well, they have no legal right to let it as an HMO but could let it as a family home. They could have let it to one of the chaps there who in turn could have sublet on the sly. Plenty of that going on, possibly more of it to come given my earlier points about the fact that regulation depends on the number of registered occupants and not the number of bedrooms. 

Interesting point. Technically yes it is the proceeds of a crime, but then too is drug dealing. Did the tenants not also benefit from a cheap rent from a dodgy HMO? Have they not too been complicit in the crime? Didn't they check the LL has the right certificates? 

Have their lives been put at risk? Really? How dangerous was that place? Sounded a lot better than their old place (presumably registered) where the mice roamed free and the landlord used it as a travelodge.

Under POCA 2002 there's the Civil Recovery mechanism that I think may have been used here. Interestingly there's no requirement to prove a criminal act. 

https://www.gov.uk/house-in-multiple-occupation-licence the penalty is an unlimited fine. Fines are not paid to victims they are paid to the authorities. I still cannot get my head around the ruling. Fair play to the tenants though, they've won thrice. Cheap rent from the off, better house and LL than last time, AND got their money back. Jager bombs all round! 

[adarmo]

9 hours ago, Dorkins said:

People always use speeding in these analogies because everybody is used to the rules of the road being broken all the time. What about if you discovered that your taxi driver didn't have a drivers licence, would you still be happy about having paid for that service?

A doctor practicing medicine without a licence performed minor surgery on my cousin the other day. Should she be entitled to a refund?

I'd say it's not a bad principle that somebody providing a service without the legally required licences should have to give the money back. They weren't supposed to be selling that service in the first place so why should they get to keep the proceeds of something they weren't supposed to be doing?

If he didn't have a 'driving' licence to carry 5 people who weren't a family unit, but did have a licence to drive a family then I wouldn't care. See the distinction?

We don't pay for medicine in the UK at the point of use, but if my doctor was licensed to perform medicine on a household unit, but not on 5 people who weren't a family unit then I wouldn't care. See the distinction?

Well I half agree with your last point, but the issue is that really the tenants benefited before they were even made aware anything was wrong since the place was better than the previous and was cheaper (according to the article). I don't think the landlord should get to keep the proceeds but that they should belong to the state since it is the state's regs the LL breached. If the property had been rented to a single family unit then no rules would have been breached and the LL could have kept the money (but presumably a little less in total as family homes are less profitable). The issue is with the tenants getting all the money back. However, it has been pointed out by my learned fellow poster @Peter Hun that this is the POCA, and he's right on that. 

[Saving For a Space Ship]

On 19/04/2019 at 18:12, spyguy said:

Yes.

I know Leeds.

Its riddled with HMOs.

 

Leeds has other probs too...

 

More deaths in Leeds from transport-related air pollution than Shanghai or New Delhi

https://airqualitynews.com/2019/04/18/more-deaths-in-leeds-from-transport-related-air-pollution-than-shanghai-or-new-delhi/

[spyguy]

2 minutes ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

Leeds has other probs too...

 

More deaths in Leeds from transport-related air pollution than Shanghai or New Delhi

https://airqualitynews.com/2019/04/18/more-deaths-in-leeds-from-transport-related-air-pollution-than-shanghai-or-new-delhi/

Its a big city (8th biggest in UK). It has a lot of poor people.

Why create problems by letting HMO slum-lords get away scot free.

 

[Saving For a Space Ship]

Just now, spyguy said:

Its a big city (8th biggest in UK). It has a lot of poor people.

Why create problems by letting HMO slum-lords get away scot free.

 

sorry, I was just really mentioning the article , not really commenting on your post  

[Peter Hun]

1 hour ago, adarmo said:

How are they different? Does a grown up family still living with their parents count as a family home or an HMO? Why would it be less risky and not require regulation simply because they're related, or not even but a confirmed family unit? In fact they just need to be defined as 1 'household' to avoid the regs. 1 Household can include all household staff, so you need to set up everyone as a cleaner, cook, au-pair, butler etc and you're set! Fricking joke. 

Yes, I'm not saying it shouldn't have been registered. I'm saying ALL RENTALS SHOULD BE REGULATED TO THE SAME STANDARD. Apologies for caps but sometimes when you've said things about three or more times one must make the point stand out. 

Well, they have no legal right to let it as an HMO but could let it as a family home. They could have let it to one of the chaps there who in turn could have sublet on the sly. Plenty of that going on, possibly more of it to come given my earlier points about the fact that regulation depends on the number of registered occupants and not the number of bedrooms. 

Interesting point. Technically yes it is the proceeds of a crime, but then too is drug dealing. Did the tenants not also benefit from a cheap rent from a dodgy HMO? Have they not too been complicit in the crime? Didn't they check the LL has the right certificates? 

Have their lives been put at risk? Really? How dangerous was that place? Sounded a lot better than their old place (presumably registered) where the mice roamed free and the landlord used it as a travelodge.

Under POCA 2002 there's the Civil Recovery mechanism that I think may have been used here. Interestingly there's no requirement to prove a criminal act. 

https://www.gov.uk/house-in-multiple-occupation-licence the penalty is an unlimited fine. Fines are not paid to victims they are paid to the authorities. I still cannot get my head around the ruling. Fair play to the tenants though, they've won thrice. Cheap rent from the off, better house and LL than last time, AND got their money back. Jager bombs all round! 

Sorry you can't understand it. The people who matter do.

[adarmo]

23 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

Sorry you can't understand it. The people who matter do.

You're pathetic attempt at a put down?

Well done on your level of argument. Addressed all the issues logically and in order with structure. ?

I'm glad i don't matter. You wouldn't waste your time if i did. 

[Kosmin]

On ‎20‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 10:20, adarmo said:

So glad the LL suffered the consequences but do not understand why the former tenants got the money. Maybe now tenants will seek out dodgy HMOs knowing they'll get the money back at some point?

I think we'd have to know a lot more details to know whether this was reasonable.

Was this house the same rent as a registered (safer) HMO? Or was it cheaper? If it was cheaper, perhaps it was a rational choice for the renter to save a bit of money on rent for slightly worse conditions or risk. Then it would be unfair for the landlord to have to compensate them - he already compensated them with the lower rent!

I think the bigger problem with this is it may take attention away from the structural issues with renting, which remain regardless of individual landlord behaviour.

[pmf170170]

It is against the law to rent an unregistered HMO, period. If caught the penalty is that the rent has to be repaid (going back 12 months from memory). No other details are required. The property may have been fully compliant but not registered. The penalty is the same.

[winkie]

Easy remedy any HMO landlord that doesn't like it or doesn't want to register, rent it out to a family then.....a home you could say is safer if rented out to a family unit because they can walk into all rooms, there are less hazards such as baby belling cookers being left on or a tap left running.....they are in control of the whole house.

 

[Peter Hun]

18 hours ago, pmf170170 said:

It is against the law to rent an unregistered HMO, period. If caught the penalty is that the rent has to be repaid (going back 12 months from memory). No other details are required. The property may have been fully compliant but not registered. The penalty is the same.

I think all the rent has to be paid, not just 12 months

 

23 hours ago, adarmo said:

You're pathetic attempt at a put down?

Well done on your level of argument. Addressed all the issues logically and in order with structure. ?

I'm glad i don't matter. You wouldn't waste your time if i did. 

You answers are basically "I don't agree with that". I'm at a loss to what else to say. Its the law  and its right.

HMO's are not a family home because they have multiple families, the very definition of a HMO, and they are regulated differently because of the problems caused by HMO's rather than single family homes.

 

[Peter Hun]

 

Landlord ordered to pay back more than £1m after illegal conversion of flats

Southwark Council has won one of London's largest proceeds of crime (confiscation order) claims from an unscrupulous landlord who chopped three flats in London Bridge into around 20 cramped studios and bedsits - putting profits before the quality of life

https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9913

 

[Mrs Bear]

That Southwark one is heartening!  

Seems a bit of a shame that the OP case didn't feature a rogue slumlord.  A few more of those having their arses handed to them on a plate, garnished with a whacking great bill,  plus the cases heavily publicised,  are needed. 

[North London Rent Girl]

39 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

 

Landlord ordered to pay back more than £1m after illegal conversion of flats

Southwark Council has won one of London's largest proceeds of crime (confiscation order) claims from an unscrupulous landlord who chopped three flats in London Bridge into around 20 cramped studios and bedsits - putting profits before the quality of life

https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9913

 

Good old Southwark. I wonder whether the difference between the amount he had to pay back and his gross rents of 1.2 million was the tax he'd paid? If so, he hadn't paid much tax.

It's easier in a planning case like that when the landlord is a scumbag and has been keeping people in grim conditions. Going back to the OP about the local regs in Leeds, I don't know, it doesn't look like it was a bad place or a particularly high rent. And the 'Leeds 5'? That seems to over-elevate it, they're not Rosa Parks.

“I’d be lying if I said the money wasn’t a motivating factor but we all share similar political beliefs and don’t think housing should be commodified,” he explains. “If private individuals are going to profit off property, we’ve at least got to hold them accountable when they do bad things. It wasn’t a personal vendetta against the landlord – he just broke the rules.”

Hmm. Is breaking a rule a bad thing necessarily? Had this landlord really done bad things, given what landlords do get up to? Perhaps this is where we are, we're all reduced to acting in a crappy way, but if this landlord was a good one, seems very unfair. When I found out about our local regs here I told our landlady, she freaked out but I said I was sure they only wanted to go after scummy landlords and I rang the council anonymously to ask what they thought and explain the situation. Sure enough, they were very understanding and said she should just make a late application and there wouldn't be a problem and there hasn't been. I was tempted with a previous house many years ago to report our landlady under the national regs because she wasn't a good one, amongst other things she had asked me to lie to the council about who lived in the house. I never did it but did take some comfort in thinking about it. I suppose I was younger and not as nice but I think it's a matter of whether you're being exploited or feel that you are. These people weren't being exploited. Why you would even consider doing this to a decent landlord is beyond me, they're like hens' teeth.

If it has a chilling effect on people getting into btl then that's good but my heart does not soar with a sense of justice done!