Currently the word 'rogue' is being used as a 'catch-all' word to describe landlords in the private sector who fall way outside the parameters of acceptable landlording. There is currently much publicity surrounding such landlords, with Shelter currently running a campaign to remove them from the sector.

However, what doesn't get any publicity is how such landlords (and their tenants because they often go together) can impact on the much larger leasehold sector, particularly when it comes to managing blocks of private flats.

This is because when a flat is purchased as a rental, the buyer effectively takes on two roles. He is not just a leaseholder who agrees to abide by his contract with the freeholder in the form of the lease (with the freeholder ensuring there are no breaches) but as a landlord, providing housing for both private and social tenants. In turn, those tenants are bound by their own contract with the leaseholder landlord in the form of a tenancy agreement. This creates the leaseholder landlord.

It is bad enough when a leaseholder fails to abide by the covenants of the lease but such a situation becomes even worse when the same leaseholder is of the very type of landlord that Mr Shapps professes to want to remove from the sector!

SITUATION ONE

The first of our 'rogue' leaseholder landlords has been providing a 'home' to an alcoholic tenant, who at the time we took over, had a pregnant girlfriend. After the birth of their little boy, his drinking got increasingly worse, as did the verbal abuse aimed at his young family. Over time his appearance continued to deteriorate and he started bringing other alcoholics onto the premises, some of whom would be found collapsed on the stairwells, in front of other flats, or in the walkways. This led to my partner and myself having to remove them, a not particularly pleasant task. We have also had make a number of calls to the police and on occasion, the paramedics.

State of the Flat

The family situation was not helped one iota by the state of the flat. It was quite frankly, disgusting. It really needed stripping out and redecorating, and probably fumigating! I'd actually met the landlord on one occasion and I took the opportunity to remind him of his obligation to keep the flat in good repair, not just as a landlord but as per the terms of the lease. He took absolutely no notice, not even bothering to mend the crack in the bedroom window that was covered by masking tape during a really cold winter. He didn't even care there was a baby in the flat. Nor did he replace the cooker when it had to be removed because of a gas leak and neither did he replace the faulty washing machine.

Preventing an Assault

Things came to a head when the tenant was assaulted by a friend of the mother. She hit him with a object that apparently had an exposed nail in it to prevent him from hitting his girlfriend who was panic stricken, and wanted to call the police. She was persuaded not to by her friend as this assault would put her back inside! She  moved out that same night, taking the child with her but a call was made to the paramedics as they turned up later and took him away.

The girl who assaulted the tenant was later seen later entering and leaving his flat but a falling out with him led to her having to be restrained by my partner because she had grabbed a shovel from the garden in an attempt to get back to his flat and hit him with it! The police were called yet again and it later transpired she had to be sectioned.

Housing Health & Safety Ratings System (HHSRS)

In the meantime, the tenant had hot-wired the electricity meter and run up a considerable debt, leading to the removal of the meter. He had been without any heat or lighting for several months and I was concerned that he might try to find alternative methods of heat and light such as a parafin heater and candles for example, which would be a fire hazard in the making! As it was abundantly clear the landlord had continued to do do absolutely nothing, I requested a Housing Health And Safety Ratings System inspection of the flat by my own local authority.

Once the Housing Standards Team entered the flat, the landlord was issued with a Schedule of Works for the interior to which he had to respond within 7 days. He was also given 14 days to re-connect the electricity supply with the tenant possibly being temporarily housed if the works were to be complied with. Personally I don't hold out much hope as the landlord was not only fined £8,000 by Newham Council last year for renting out one of the worst properties they had ever seen but he also has an unlicenced HMO which they are also pursuing him over.

Antisocial Tenant or Vulnerable Adult?

The definition of 'antisocial' (especially in terms of behaviour) is 'conflicting with accepted standards and causing annoyance', with the adjective being 'not wanting to mix with other people'. The behaviour of the tenant and his associates undoubtedly comes under the former but a side effect of using HHSRS was that the tenant is now on the council radar as a vulnerable adult under SOVA (Safeguarding of Vulnerable Adults). This is not just because he drinks to excess  but also because he is incapable of making decisions that do not put him at risk of assault, born out by the fact that he has been assaulted on more than one occasion.

STIUATION TWO

The second 'rogue'leaseholder landlord assured us he wanted to fit in, not cause problems and house 'decent' tenants. His version of such assurances was to structurally alter the flat without permission, move the tenant into the flat (with her two young children) knowing full well the gas meter was faulty and refusing to supply proof that the flat is gas safe. His employment of inferior contractors has led to water damage  occurring to the flat beneath (twice) and a hole appearing in their bathroom ceiling. He has also failed to take control of the number of people residing in the flat outside of the tenancy agreement. 

False Claim of Harrassment

What really kicked the current problems off was the fact that someone reported his tenant to social services for physically abusing her children. She was convinced it was our neighbours in the downstairs flat (which it wasn't) but nevertheless she launched a claim of harassment against them despite the fact that the most contact they had had with her was a request for her to remove her shoes and that of the children whilst they were indoors because the flat was not soundproofed and had laminated wood flooring!

Four Police Officers Attend!

This false claim led to four police officers turning up to their flat just before Christmas last year. After our neighbours had gotten over the shock of thinking that someone in their family had died, the police asked them some questions. They were then formally interviewed at the local station just after Christmas and were angered and upset to have to sit and listen to the lies that had been said about them and being allowed to offer nothing in their defence.

I visited them New Years Eve after they had called me about the noise and at some points I honestly thought the tenant and her friends were going to come through the ceiling! Living noise is one thing but the types of thumps and bangs and the deliberate stamping of shoes on laminated floors was something completely different! 

I called Noise Pollution and also spoke to the police but before they could send someone out, the flat was vacated for the night and all was quiet again.

The landlord did visit our neighbours on another issue regarding his flat but basically said they should learn to live with others because he can't afford to lose a tenant. He even asked them (a couple in their eighties) if they could confront the tenant themselves, refusing to accept that that his tenant has a personal vendetta against them.

As a direct result of his refusal to confirm that the flat was made gas safe, I again requested an HHSRS inspection but no proof in the form of a Gas Safe Certificate was provided to them either.

Again, the side effect of involving the local authority and the police has led to our pensioner neighbours also being on the radar under SOVA not least because one of them has a heart condition!

WHERE DO WE PUT SUCH TENANTS?

In a response to a post I placed on an NLA discussion board I was asked where I wanted such tenants to be put. Did I want them to be put into a ghetto and let chaos ensue or did I want them to be placed in civilised society where they could learn to integrate?

The bottom line here is that in both situations there has been neither the willingness or the ability to integrate. Whilst the alcoholic tenant turns him from being purely anti-social to vulnerable, the other is purely anti-social because she has a belief that she is entitled to do what she wants when she wants to, and woe betide anyone who tries to stop her! As with the alcoholic who can only surround himself with other alcoholics, she surrounds herself with friends who think exactly the same as she does.

Yet Another Disturbance and an Assault

On yet another disturbance that spilled out into the common areas recently and which we both tried to quieten, my partner was again physically assaulted by one such visitor. To his credit the only thing he did was to restrain her but nevertheless the tenant called the police, as did he. The interesting thing was that because they got the call from the tenant just ahead of his call, they attended her flat first. The girl who assaulted him didn't want to press charges and at first the police were prepared to simply let it go, as it was a case of 'he said, she said'.

Voluntary Arrest!

My partner on the other hand was not happy to let it go because he had been kicked, punched and scratched for absolutely no reason so he did press charges and voluntarily got himself arrested in order to be able to do so. After taking his statement at the police station, he was released on bail but it didn't take them long to inform him that he was no longer suspected of assault but was actually the victim. There would be no charges against him as it was clear that he had acted in self-defence (his attacker had got a ripped t-shirt and alleged a head injury from having her head hit against a wall).

WHY DO THESE PROBLEMS BECOME OURS?

What we really want to be able to do is to protect ourselves, our investment, and our block from such serious problems with 'rogue' landlords and tenants before they start. Unfortunately due to the subletting covenant of our lease being continually ignored (the freeholder has to grant permission to sublet) we have been unable to put even the most basic of conditions in place ahead of granting such permission. Even so, these are not without risk as they have to be enforceable and, under statute, reasonable. If a letting is lost or prevented because agreement cannot be reached, landlords could make a claim for damages against us because they are entitled to protect their legitimate interests. We it seems, are not.

Raising My Concerns

I contacted ARLA, ARMA, Grant Shapps and the Health and Safety Executive (twice) outlining my concerns about the serious problems we have experienced but sadly the only reply I got was from the NFOPP (National Federation of Property Professionals) on behalf of ARLA. Unfortunate all they did was refer me LEASE. This was very disappointing because at the very least I was looking for a comment on something that is not just a block management issue but a conveyancing and PRS issue too.

On expressing my disappointment to them I received a second response which said:

if you have a complaint about a particular conveyancer then you may wish to complain to their professional body. If the conveyancer is a solicitor then the correct body would be the Solicitors Regulation Authority, or if they are a licensed conveyancer then it would be the Council of Licensed Conveyancers. Any broader issues concerning the quality of conveyancing more generally then perhaps the Law Society would be the correct route to raise concerns. They could not assist further because their remit did not extend to conveyancing.

LETTER TO THE COUNCIL

I also wrote to the leader of my local council, that of the London Borough of Waltham Forest:

When we took Wellington Mansions over, first via Right to Manage then by securing the freehold, we thought that we were well on the way to restoring the block to its former glory but we now have a major problem with benefit tenants that have drink, drugs and anti-social behaviour issues being being placed here. There are no checks being carried out as to the suitability of the landlords to be operating as such, no checks made on the property to ensure they are safe and no checks as to whether such landlords are able (and prepared) to take on the management that these tenants inevitably need.

Because of this lack of checks, it has been my partner and myself who have had to deal with the subsequent problems when they have spilled out into the common areas and in the course of doing so we have been threatened and assaulted, not to mention the number of times we have had to call the police and on some occasions, the paramedics.

I am therefore asking Waltham Forest Council how we can stop such tenants being placed onto our block.

In theory we should be able to play a part in preventing such landlords from operating here in the first place but we have been unsuccessful, purely because the covenant of our lease that says permission should be sought from the freeholder before subletting permission is granted, is continually ignored. This was understandable when there was no one to seek permission from but even purchases made after we took over have continued to ignore this all-important covenant.

Therefore, I would like to ask if its possible to arrange a meeting in which to discuss the situation further because technically no landlord on this block  has permission to sublet.

Their Reply

In relation to the alcoholic tenant that you refer to, both the Housing Standards and our Resident Support team are currently dealing with the issues and the individual in this accommodation. I am unable to fully disclose the full extent of our involvement and the proposed plan of action to you at this stage but can reassure you that we are in the process of pro-actively dealing with the situation which you have very kindly brought to our attention and I hope you will see positive results very shortly.

In terms of the anti-social behaviour issues, as you are probably aware the Council views any form of anti-social behaviour seriously and is committed to eradicating this. The Anti-Social Behaviour team (ASB) have been asked to investigate the issues you have highlighted and are in the process of carrying out their investigations.  As these are completed they will update you.

You have also raised the issue of how leaseholders can be prevented from letting to undesirable tenants. This is something it would appear the Council has no power over as letting private property is something that is very much an individual decision and if as you point out, the covenant relating to this is being ignored, it is not something that the Council can enforce.  It would be a civil matter between the leaseholders hence at this stage we cannot accommodate your request for a proposed meeting.

My Reply

Whilst I was pleased to get a response I was however already aware of who was dealing with what.  I was not however satisfied that the role that the council plays in the block had been addressed so I sent this reply:

Thank you for your response. I appreciate that the Housing Standards Team and the ASB team are looking into the issues I have raised concerning Wellington Mansions.

Unfortunately the council's role in contributing to these difficulties has yet to be addressed. I am not asking you to enforce the covenant to sublet. What I am asking for is for you to stop placing benefit tenants on the block without checking that the landlord is fit to be operating as such. I am also asking that tenants with drink, drugs and anti-social behaviour issues are also prevented from coming here unless it is abundantly clear to you that the landlord they will be housed with is capable and willing to take on the management such tenants inevitably require.

You refer to letting as a choice being made by private individuals but this is too simplistic a response. You are no doubt aware that Newham council are pro-actively working towards getting private sector landlords licenced because there are so many out there that are not only unfit to be operating as such but rent properties that are as sub-standard as they are. There have also been further complications on our block because a number of flats have been let under Private Sector Leasing but there has been no contact made with either the freeholders or the managing agent to ensure such permission to place the properties under the scheme has been granted. This situation can also be further complicated when issues arise from tenants placed here from other boroughs and again, we have no knowledge of which one!

We have requested assistance from the council on more than one occasion. Nine months working toward our roof being replaced and notice served on our (then) managing agent led to nothing as the council had forgotten we were owner-occupiers. We sought assistance in terms of getting a common area grant to replace the roof but these had been withdrawn. They could have been granted on a discretionary basis but we were denied such assistance.

We cannot however be denied assistance on the issues I am raising. We have pulled this block up by its bootlaces and it has been long and it has been hard. I have made reference to the most recent assault on myself and my partner. It is however not the first and without your assistance it will not be the last.

Therefore I again request a meeting to discuss the role that Waltham Forest Council continues to play in this block. We have the right to expect that any other party involved in Wellington Mansions is as professional and hard working as we are and if such parties are impacting on our ability to protect our asset and the safety of our other residents, then such an impact needs to be addressed.

SUMMARY

Landlords say they are neither carers or social workers. Well, neither are myself and my partner. We are also not landlords who sit back and takes housing benefit without lifting a finger when the proverbial hits the fan, which both of these landlords continue to do. HMO'S are licenced but selective licencing has received little or not take up, leaving private blocks of flats like mine completely unprotected.

I'm not against benefit tenants perse but if the local authorities are going to continue to use an over-stretched private rental sector then those landlords must be seriously scrutinised, not only as to whether they are suitable to be operating as such but also whether they are willing to take on the extra management that tenants with drink, drugs and anti-social tendencies undoubtedly need. Not to mention checking whether the property is actually safe!

Yes, we have the option of forfeiture but we also have every right to expect that landlords will deal with problems caused by their tenants, as it is they who have the contract with the tenant through the mechanisms of the tenancy agreement, not us! We have enough to do especially when you consider that the former landlord is also in serious service charge arrears and both landlords are in ground rent arrears!

Note: As these situations are ongoing they will be updated accordingly.